Skip to main content

Full text of "Naturalization practices : hearings before the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, on examining the practices and policies of the Immigration and Naturalization Service as it relates to the naturalization process, October 9 and 22, 1996"

See other formats

S. Hrg. 104-872 


Y 4. J 89/2:S.Hrgl 

\o^-^19 I HEARINGS 








OCTOBER 9 AND 27,'^|&6^i.|/J^^ 

Serial No. J-104^1(^ ^ 1$^, 

Printed for the use of the ComiyiSeeV^ntferiMLdiciary 



For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-055317-2 

lOH^- f\ 

S. Hrg. 104-872 


4. J 89/2:S.Hrg| 

04-27;? 1^ HEARINGS 








, ^§fW^ 

OCTOBER 9 AND 22'^jra«l*iC^'^ 

— sfpj r^ 

Serial No. J-1Q4t1(^ / f^ 

Printed for the use of the ComijBSee^%>||r^Mdiciary 


GOyfifil\!M€NT OGCy^ENTS OEPARTr^ltrj • 


8 2000 j 


For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of DocumenLs, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-055317-2 


ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

STROM THURMOND, South CaroUna JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware 

ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 







Mark R. Disler, Chief Counsel 
MajwS ?Jooney, Staff Director and Senior Counsel 
^ Cynthia C. Hogan, Minority Chief Counsel 
y^ ^f'W Karen A. Robb, Minority Staff Director 



ALAN K^ SIljjIPSON, Wyoming, Chairman 
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa ' ' - EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JON KYL, Arizona PAUL SIMON, Illinois 


■ '''* ' Dick Day, Chief Counsel 

Michael Myers, Minority Special Counsel 





Simpson, Hon. Alan K., U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming 1,253 

Simon, Hon. Paul, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois 5 

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts 3,256 


OCTOBER 9, 1996 

T. Alexander AleinikoflF, Executive Associate Commissioner for Programs, Im- 
migration and Naturalization Service, Washington, DC; accompanied by 
Don Crocetti, Associate Commissioner for Examinations, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service; and David Rosenberg, Director, Citizenship USA, 
Immigration and Natiiralization Service 6 

Panel consisting of Pavil W. Roberts, chief executive officer, NatxiraUzation 
Assistance Services, Inc., Lakeland, FL; and Richard Krieger, vice presi- 
dent, Marich Associates, Inc., RockviUe, MD 21 

Panel consisting of Michael J. Feuer, director. Board of Testing and Assess- 
ment, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC; and Bert F. Green, 
Jr., professor of psychology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 39 

Panel consisting of Rosemary Jenks, director of policy analysis. Center for 
Immigration Studies, Washington, DC; and Kathi Flynn, immigration su- 
pervisor, International Institute of Lowell, Lowell, MA 52 

OCTOBER 22, 1996 

Panel consisting of John Fonte, visiting scholar, American Enterprise Insti- 
tute; Lawrence Harrison, professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 
and Douglas Klusmeyer, editor, Stanford Humanities Review 261 

Panel consisting of Georgie Anne Geyer, sjTidicated columnist and author 
of Americans No More: The Death of Citizenship; Dan Stein, executive 
director. Federation for American Immigration Reform; and Raul Yzaguirre, 
president. National Council of La Raza 284 


Aleinikoff, T. Alexander: 

Testimony 6 

Prepared statement 16 

Feuer, Michael J.: 

Testimony 39 

Prepared statement 41 

Flynn, Kathi: 

Testimony 242 

Prepared statement 244 

Fonte, John: 

Testimony 261 

Prepared statement 265 

Geyer, Georgie Anne: Testimony 284 

Green, Bert F., Jr.: 

Testimony 44 

Prepared statement 46 

Harrison, Lawrence: Testimony 268 




Jenks, Rosemary: 

Testimony 52 

Prepared statement 55 

Various memos, e-mail notices, letters, and other correspondence 65 

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M: 

Letter containing a list of countries that do not permit dual citizenship .... 279 

International Citizenship Laws 280 

Article entitled, "U.S. Students Stumble on Citizenship Test," from the 

American Teacher, dated October 1995 309 

Klusmeyer, Douglas: Testimony 270 

Krieger, Richard: 

Testimony 25 

Letter from Councilwoman Suzanne Sareini, city of Dearborn, MI to 

Mr. Krieger, dated Sept. 1, 1996 29 

Letter from Don Bluestone, executive director, Mosholu Montefiore Com- 
munity Center to Mr. Krieger, dated Sept. 8, 1996 30 

Letter from Cliff Frazier, executive director. New York Metropolitan Mar- 
tin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolence to Mr. Kneger, dated 

Oct. 4, 1996 31 

Letter from Kamla Ramkissoon, site manager, Seva Community Services 

to Mr. Krieger, dated Oct. 4, 1996 32 

Letter from Yolanda Vega, director, agency services, Casita Maria Inc., 

dated Oct. 7, 1996 34 

Letter from Rabbi Moshe C. Levin, executive director, Chabad Lubavitch 

of Kensington to Mr. Krieger, dated Oct. 7, 1996 35 

Roberts, Paul W.: 

Testimony 21 

Prepared statement ; 23 

Simpson, Hon. Alan K.: 

Prepared statement of Hon. Brian P. Bilbray, Representative in Congress 

from the State of California 259 

Prepared statement of Lawrence H. Fuchs, co-chair, U.S. Commission 

on Immigration Reform 300 

Stein, Dan: 

Testimony 287 

Prepared statement 290 

Yzaguirre, Raul: 

Testimony 293 

Prepared statement 296 

Letter from Antonia Hernandez, president and general counsel, Mexican- 
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), dated Oct. 
29, 1996 312 


Additional Submissions for the Record 

OCTOBER 9, 1996 

Prepared statement of John Nelson Washburn, semi-retired attorney and 

counselor at law 319 

Article entitled, "Election Frauds," from the North American and Daily 

Advertiser, dated Oct. 21, 1840 322 

Article entitled, "The Naturalization Fraud at Philadelphia," from the 

Savannah Dailv Republican, dated Oct. 29, 1840 323 

Article entitled. The Philadelphia Naturalization Frauds," from the Sun, 

dated Oct. 30, 1840 324 

Article entitled, "Official Returns," from the Sun,dated Nov. 11, 1840 325 

OCTOBER 22, 1996 

Letter to the editor of the National Review from Charles Kamasaki, senior 
vice president. National Council of La Raza (NCLR), dated Sept. 19, 1996 ... 326 

Prepared statement of Harry P. Pachon, Ph.D., Kenan professor of poUtical 
studies, Pitzer College/Claremont Graduate School, and president, Tomas 
Rivera PoUcy Institute 327 

Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) Policy Brief, dated October 1996 332 



U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, DC. 
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 
SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Alan K. Simpson 
(chairman of the subcommittee), presiding. 
Also present: Senator Kennedy. 


Senator SiMPSON. The hearing will come to order. Good morning. 
Welcome to a hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration on INS 
naturalization practices. There has been quite a bit of notoriety 
about this issue. I think it is important to leave some kind of a 
record behind with regard to at least the current situation. 

Today, the subcommittee will hear testimony from witnesses who 
are familiar with the practices of the recent past. We will hear 
from INS, from independent test-givers, from test development ex- 
perts, and from outside observers. But I think before we turn our 
attention to the process and all its requirements, we need to be 
clear why naturalization is so very important. 

U.S. citizenship is, and should be, a most precious, precious sta- 
tus. I know when I practiced law in Cody, WY, that was one of the 
most impressive ceremonies when they would appear before the 
district judge within the District of Wyoming in the small commu- 
nities to receive this precious status, and it is indeed. Certainly, 
whether a person is a citizen by birth or by choice, U.S. citizenship 
is eagerly sought by immigrants from around the globe. 

Many of us who are bom here in the United States take our citi- 
zenship for granted. We do not always treasure it as we ought too. 
It is those who naturaUze, who choose America over any "foreign 
prince, potentate, state or sovereignty" and promise to "bear true 
faith and allegiance," it is these newest citizens who remind us of 
how special American citizenship is. 

Naturalization is the process which reinforces the bonds among 
all citizens, and it culminates in the at least formerly impressive 
ceremony where our Nation welcomes its newest Americans. Please 
know that the requirements for naturahzation are not arbitrary. 
First, citizenship applicants must reside in the United States for 5 
years, 3 years if their spouse is already a citizen; second, be able 
to spe£ik, to read, and to write English; third, to have knowledge 


and understanding of the fundamentals of U.S. history and the 
principles of the Government of the United States; and be a person 
of good moral character attached to the principles of the Constitu- 
tion, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the 
United States. 

These requirements are intended to ensure a common framework 
for Americans and to protect the fundamental institutions that 
Americans hold dear. These requirements ensure that those who 
have the privilege of citizenship are able to exercise the responsibil- 
ities which accompany it. Some individuals promote American citi- 
zenship on the basis of the practical benefits that it brings. Citi- 
zens are entitled to several important privileges — ^the right to vote 
for representatives in their local, State, and national government; 
a U.S. passport and all the protection that offers when traveUng 
the world; opportunities for employment in certain Federal jobs 
and, under the new welfsire reforms, access to certain Federal wel- 
fare programs. 

Recently, one individual, a naturalized American, who strongly 
opposes the recent welfare reforms advocated and adopted by Con- 
gress, announced that he will devote $50 million not simply as a 
private charity to ameliorate hardships that may or may not result 
from the reforms, which I supported, and many of us did in a bi- 
partisan way, but rather that that money go toward naturalization 
efforts, which will then guarantee continued access to taxpayer- 
funded support systems. That is an interesting concept. 

While there are very practical benefits that derive from U.S. citi- 
zenship, and thus from naturalization, they should not, in my view, 
be the goal. I would hope that the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service and others who administer the naturalization process will 
focus on its central purpose; that is, to admit new members into 
our body politic, persons whose full allegiance is to this Nation and 
who have shown that they will be able to assume all the respon- 
sibilities, people who embrace a common flag and a common lan- 
guage, and that they will then be able to assiune the responsibil- 
ities, as well as obtain the benefits of that full membership. 

I am just going to cite a couple of quotes, and I wouldn't let you 
guess where they came from. Here is one from many years ago dur- 
ing World War I: 

You cannot become thorough Americans if you think of yourselves in groups. 
America does not consist of groups. A man who thinks of himself as belonging to 
a particular national group in America has not yet become an American. 

That was Woodrow Wilson who said that. I knew you probably 
thought it was some evil rascal somewhere. 
Here is another one. It says: 

We have no 50-50 allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and 
nothing else or he is not an American at all. We Americans are children of the cru- 
cible. The crucible does not do its work unless it turns out those cast into it in one 
national mold. 

That was Teddy Roosevelt who said that one. He also said: 

The absolutely one certain way of bringing this Nation to ruin, of preventing all 
possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become 
a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of Grerman Americans, Irish 
Americans, English Americans, French Americans, Scandinavian Americans, or Ital- 
ian Americans each preserving its separate nationality. 

Those are things in the background that are not here for us to 
address today, but those are the things that are uniquely Amer- 
ican. When we see things happening with the naturahzation proc- 
ess either through the use of testers or ethnic groups or people who 
are simply desirous of seeing more at the expense of seeing what 
this precious gift is, I think then we need to examine that, and that 
is the purpose of this hearing. 

We will review how current legal requirements for naturalization 
are being implemented by the INS. As I say, recent reports have 
cast some doubt on INS' commitment to fully implementing these 
requirements, requirements intended to prevent the award of U.S. 
citizenship to those who are not fully entitled to it. So I am eager 
to proceed. 

The timing was magnificent. I had just concluded my remarks 
and suddenly, like a phantom from the wings of the opera, the 
phantom of the opera himself — oh, no — and we have had enough 
good-byes and we will have some more, but this is one delightful 
gentleman whom I shall greatly miss from my Washington years. 
Even though we have tangled and scrapped and will continue to do 
so, he is a very remarkable man and a very delightful friend. 



Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much. Senator Simpson, and 
I think, as we have remarked at other times, the Congress may 
have been adjourned and Senator Simpson's time of service in the 
Senate may be coming to a close, but he is once again demonstrat- 
ing his dedication to service by continuing during the beginning of 
the fiscal year oversight in some very, very important areas that 
need attention. While others are in different parts of the country, 
Senator Simpson, as we might know, is at his desk and conducting 
these hearings. So we appreciate the chance again to be here at 
this important hearing and to commend him for conducting the 
hearing this morning. 

Just very briefly, America is a nation of immigrants, and natu- 
ralization, the act of becoming a citizen, is the heart and soul of 
the immigrant tradition that has contributed so much to the Na- 
tion throughout the two centuries of our history. 

Few processes are more significant for the Nation than the steps 
established by the Government to enable immigrants to become 
citizens of the United States. Naturalization is a fundamental and 
intended result of immigration. As the report of the Jordan Com- 
mission emphasized, "Naturalization is about ensuring the vitality 
of this Nation, ensuring continuity of our past, present, and fu- 

Today's hearing deals with an unprecedented consequence of the 
current national debate over legal and illegal immigration. Hun- 
dreds of thousands of legal immigrants are rushing to qualify for 
naturalization and become citizens in order to protect themselves 
and their families against the harsh anti-immigrant tide that has 
become increasingly prevalent in many parts of the coiuitry, and 
blatant attempts by some in Congress to reduce the benefits avail- 
able to legal immigrants. 

To a large extent, legal immigrants are the innocent victims of 
the backlash against illegal immigration. To protect themselves 
against that backlash, it is hardly surprising that they are exercis- 
ing their legal right to become citizens and participate in our de- 

In 1992 when the Clinton administration first took office, INS re- 
ceived almost 350,000 applications for naturalization. By the end 
of 1995, the number had tripled to over 1 million applications. Un- 
fortunately, the INS was given no significant additional resources 
to handle this massive increase. As a result, INS was able to proc- 
ess only half of the applications received in 1995. Backlogs were al- 
ready 2 years long in some parts of the country and were likely to 
increase to 4 years longer. Immigrants fully qualified for imme- 
diate American citizenship were being denied that right for unac- 
ceptable lengths of time. 

I think, to her credit. Commissioner Doris Meissner made deal- 
ing with the backlog of naturalization one of the top priorities for 
INS in 1996. She received bipartisan support in Congress to repro- 
gram funds and hire additional personnel and equipment. She 
streamlined the management of the program, while maintaining 
and improving the integrity of the process. The results of these ini- 
tiatives have been a great American success story. Backlogs that 
threatened to deny citizenship to large numbers of qualified appU- 
cants for years were reduced to months. Justice was no longer 
being denied because of these long delays. 

Yet, now we hear complaints from some Republicans that INS is 
doing its job too well and that it is doing so for partisan political 
reasons. Nonsense. What is happening is democracy at work. It is 
also poetic justice. Anti-immigrant Republicans have created an 
unintended backlash against themselves. It is hard to take them 
seriously when they complain that too many immigrants are be- 
coming citizens and preparing to exercise their right to vote against 
an anti-immigrant Republican. 

There is no evidence of impropriety. Standards are being en- 
forced. INS is responding properly to the soaring demand for citi- 
zenship that our Republican friends have created. Denial rates re- 
main as high or higher than ever before — about 17 percent — hardly 
an indicator of lower standards. 

The Citizenship USA campaign created by INS in response to the 
demand for citizenship has focused on 5 cities that have 75 percent 
of the applications — Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Chicago, and 
San Francisco. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, INS efforts have 
received impressive bipartisan praise from Republicans in the 
South Florida congressional delegation, from the Republican mayor 
of New York, and from the Democratic mayors of Chicago and San 

So I commend the efforts of the men and women of the Immigra- 
tion and Naturalization Service. They deserve praise, not blame, 
for their effective response to the current crisis. I look forward to 
the testimony of our witnesses. 

I thank the Chair. 

Senator Simpson. Thank you, and I think it is important, at least 
with Senator Kennedy and myself through the years of our associa- 
tion, which are now 18, that immigration and refugee issues are 

not partisan. They are bipartisan, and it cannot be done in any 
other form. Perhaps that was why the great tangle took so long to 
get untangled this year because of attempts to make it a partisan 
issue. That will always fail. I hope it will fail. It isn't worth wast- 
ing time on, but I think it is very important that this, for me, has 
never been anything in connection with any type of partisan activ- 
ity, none, and the record will disclose that very, very clearly. 

I have a statement of our colleague. Senator Paul Simon, which 
I will enter into the record as if read in full. Certainly, he has been 
a fine, contributing member of our work. At one time, there were 
just three of us doing this work — Senator Kennedy, Senator Simon, 
and myself — because there wasn't ever a rush to the door to help 
us do it. 

Certainly, Paul Simon was — well, we know who he is, one of the 
most compassionate and remarkable men. He is Will Rogers' epit- 
ome of never knowing a man he didn't like. He is a wonderful gen- 
tleman. He will be greatly missed in this place. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Paul Simon follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Simon, a U.S. Senator From the State of 


I thank the Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Simpson, for whom I have the ut- 
most respect and whose retirement will leave the Senate a much poorer institution, 
for holding this hearing. The gift of citizenship is the greatest that this nation can 
bestow on any immigrant, so it is essential that this Subcommittee and the Amer- 
ican people get the facts straight regarding the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service's Citizenship USA initiative. 

I have long advocated a greater emphasis on naturalization on the part of the 
INS, as well as Congress. Prior to this administration, for too many years, the 
"Service" component of the Immigration and Naturalization Service generally — and 
naturalization in particular — was the subject of virtually complete neglect. With 
Commissioner Meissner at the helm, this has changed, and I applaud her commit- 
ment to this important aspect of the INS' mission. She is without question the most 
competent, engaged INS Commissioner that I have encountered in my 22 years on 
Capitol Hill, and our immigration policy — in the area of naturalization and else- 
where — is sounder for her leadership. 

The INS' newfound commitment to naturalization has been painted by some as 
a political maneuver designed to get votes for the current administration in the up- 
coming election, at the expense of standards and adequate review of applicants' his- 
tories. While this is a convenient explanation for the surge in naturahzation applica- 
tions and approvals, let me suggest a different one. 

Over the past two years, both in the 104th Congress and in states such as Califor- 
nia, I have witnessed anti-immigrant sentiment the likes of which have not been 
seen in this nation for several decades. This anti-immigrant sentiment is directed 
not only toward iUegal immigrants — who shovild rightly be the subject of some strict, 
but sensible, enforcement measures — but also toward legal inunigrants, despite the 
fact that these individuals play by the rules, work hard, create jobs, and, on the 
whole, confer net benefits upon this country. 

Legal immigrants have long been a source of great enrichment for our nation. 
Those immigrants who enter our nation legally today continue, as they have in the 
past, to make invaluable contributions to America's social, economic, and cultural 
well-being. Yet many Americans, including many members of Congress, have come 
to view legal, as well as illegal immigrants, as parasites who take from America 
without giving anji;hing back, and who possess no interest or stake in the nation's 

Such perceptions have given rise to laws like the new welfare reform law, which 
drastically and, in my view, improperly restricts legal immigrants' access to govern- 
ment assistance. The recent immigration bill, signed into law as part of the Omni- 
bus Appropriations Bill, represents a further, but much smaller, step in that direct. 
We also have state measures like Proposition 187 which, while directed at illegal 
immigrants, have led to a great deal of discrimination against legal immigrants as 

While the anti-immigrant sentiment in evidence today is not novel in our history, 
that is no answer to the many hard-working legal immigrants who hear themselves 
maligned and scapegoated by their neighbors and their representatives in state and 
federal government. 

What is a legal immigrant to do under these circumstances? How can he or she 
act to change the direction of a government that in its hostility toward immigrants 
has forgotten the very foundations of this nation's greatness? How can he or she 
gain a greater stake in a society that has come to view immigrants — however long 
they have resided here — as outsiders? The answer lies in naturalization, and in 
what naturalization provides — the right to vote, the ultimate participation in demo- 
cratic (not Democratic) society. Nothing could be more American than the desire to 
affect political outcomes through the casting of a ballot on election day. 

So is it any surprise that legal immigrants seek to naturalize in record numbers? 
Is it any surprise that California — the site of Proposition 187 — leads the nation in 
naturalization backlogs? Is it wrong for the Administration to try to address this 
phenomenon through an aggressive and long overdue pro-naturalization initiative? 
The answer to each of these questions is no. 

Republicans charge that the Administration's naturalization initiative is a "get 
out the vote" strategy designed to help Democrats in November. Yet in the same 
way that immigration has never been a partisan issue, immigrant voting patterns 
have rarely reflected one-sided partisanship. Many immigrants vote Democrat; 
many others vote Republican. The cities with the largest backlogs — Los Angeles, 
Miami, New York — contain many of both. The Republican charges on this front fly 
in the face of history and reality. 

Maybe it is unfortunate that immigrants have until today not been sufficiently 
motivated to naturalize. I think a review of our history would find many other 
groups whose participation in politics only really began in the face of the kind of 
threat faced by legal immigrants today. If immigrants vote Democrat this year, 
those Republicans that have spent the better part of two years advocating anti-im- 
migrant legislation will have only themselves to blame. 

We all recognize the lengths that INS must still travel to make up for current 
shortcomings in a variety of areas. No one is suggesting that all the necessary work 
has been done. But it is moving in the right direction, and the Administration's com- 
mitment to facilitating naturalization is a positive, not a negative, sign. 

In closing, let me add a few words about the individuals who have headed the 
Citizenship USA initiative for the INS. During my tenure in the Senate, I have 
worked with many of them. Like Comipissioner Meissner, they are committed to 
helping immigrants and to helping immigrants help themselves, without compromis- 
ing the standards of the Agency and the naturalization process. Far from being po- 
litical "hacks" and "operatives", they are dedicated, honest individuals doing good 
work, not for Democrats, but for America. 

Senator SiMPSON. So we will now proceed with the witness, T. 
Alexander Aleinikoff, the Executive Associate Commissioner for 
Programs, Immigration and Naturalization Service. We do have the 
time limitations and I thank you for your understanding of that, 
and we would be very pleased to have your testimony. 


Mr. Aleinikoff. Thank you. Senator. Thank you for the oppor- 
tunity to appear before you today. I am pleased to discuss with you 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service's achievements in re- 
sponding to an unprecedented increase in applications for natu- 

Under our initiative, called Citizenship USA, the Service has ad- 
judicated more than 1.2 million applications for naturalization in 
fiscal year 1996, and we did so in a timely, accurate, and respon- 

sible manner. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be here today to allay 
some of the concerns that you raised about whether or not the laws 
have been followed and we have done this in an appropriate fash- 

I would like to take a few minutes to review the origins of the 
program. Quite simply, the numbers tell the story. As Senator Ken- 
nedy pointed out, in previous years naturalization applications 
averaged about 2 to 300,000 a ye£ir. In fiscal year 1994, that num- 
ber rose to 550,000. In fiscal year 1995, it leaped to more than 1 
million, and that level repeated in 1996 as well. We expect that 
level to stay the same for the next year or so. 

By early 1995, these record-breaking numbers had created a 
huge backlog and processing times had risen dramatically, and in 
the summer of 1995 the INS conceived of Citizenship USA, a pro- 
gram designed to retiu-n our processing times to acceptable levels. 
We announced the program in August 1995. Our stated goal was 
to get current with naturalization applications by the summer of 
1996. By "getting current" we meant a processing time of 6 months 
from the time of filing to swearing-in as a new citizen. 

While Citizenship USA is a nationwide program, we initially fo- 
cused our resources in 5 key districts where the greatest numbers 
of pending cases existed. These were Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, 
New York, and San Francisco. At that time these offices had 75 
percent of the pending caseload and the waiting time for interviews 
there were patently unacceptable. An applicant filing for natu- 
ralization in Los Angeles in the summer of 1995 would have waited 
more than 2 years to be interviewed, and in Miami more than 4 

In short. Citizenship USA put both "Naturalization" and "Serv- 
ice" back into the INS. Naturalization applicants are long-term per- 
manent residents who pay a significant fee for a service — the effi- 
cient adjudication of their application under the law. Had we not 
taken steps to meet this tremendous challenge of the huge in- 
creases, we would now be facing criticism for inaction and derelic- 
tion of duty. 

The importance of U.S. citizenship cannot be gainsay. For both 
the applicant and for the Nation he or she seeks to join, it is a deci- 
sion of singular significance. It is the highest benefit — some may 
justly say honor — that this Nation bestows on immigrants. Because 
of the tangible and the symbolic importance of granting citizenship, 
INS' increased efforts must be carried out in a fashion that does 
not compromise standards. This we have done. No policy directive, 
no guidance, has been issued that reduces the standards we apply 
to naturalization applicants. Indeed, our denial rate for Citizenship 
USA is at or above historic levels. 

Furthermore, our efforts have had bipartisan support fi*om the 
Congress. Two reprogrammings have been approved by the appro- 
priations committees, the second in January 1996 which expressly 
identified the goals and means of Citizenship USA. Chairman Rog- 
ers' notice of approval states that he "is pleased that the INS is 
recognizing the significant workload and addressing it in this re- 

The reprogramming permitted us to hire over 1,000 adjudicators 
and other personnel and contract employees. We detailed them 


originally to the key districts and all of the officers who were de- 
tailed volunteered to be part of the project. All the new personnel 
that we hired — permanent, temporary, and contract — received ap- 
propriate security clearances and training, and are supervised by 
experienced INS personnel. In the five key districts, we opened 
nine new citizenship centers, newly equipped with updated tech- 
nology, mostly located in areas that are more accessible to the ap- 

Mr. Chairman, let me say a few words about FBI fingerprint 
checks, and I may run out of time and perhaps I will have more 
time in the question period to say more. We have made many im- 
provements to the fingerprint clearance process to make it as effi- 
cient and thorough as possible. Recent media reports have reflected 
a misunderstanding of what we are doing, so I would like to ex- 
plain the process. 

Each naturalization applicant submits a fingerprint card with his 
or her application and that card is sent to the FBI. The FBI reports 
to the INS as to whether there is a match in its files, and when 
there is a match the record is provided to the INS. We receive a 
positive response or a hit from the FBI in only a small percentage 
of cases, and since FBI databases include not only convictions but 
also records of arrests and administrative processing by INS, the 
number of records which represent disqualifying convictions that 
would bar naturalization are a fraction of the hits that we receive 
from the FBI. 

In June of this year, INS established the Fingerprint Clearance 
Coordination Center at the INS service center in Lincoln, NE, to 
centralize the receipt and processing of all FBI responses, and this 
allows us to provide the FBI record immediately to the responsible 
field office designated as a point of contact for matching with the 
applicant's files. 

There is more to say here, Mr. Chairman, which I hope I will get 
a chance to do in the question period, but let me just conclude with 
the following remark. No major initiative is problem-free. To be 
sure, we have experienced growing pains, but where problems have 
surfaced, we have dealt with them forthrightly and in a thoughtful 
manner. We have recognized and protected the fundamental sig- 
nificance of U.S. citizenship in a manner that ensiu-es dignity to 
those who have sought to join us as full members of the American 

Mr. Chairman, with our indulgence, I would like to invite two 
additional people to join me at the table who are more knowledge- 
able than I on some of the matters that you seek information on. 

Senator Simpson. That would be perfectly appropriate, if you 
would just introduce them for the record. 

Mr. Aleinikoff. I would be happy to do so. On my left is Don 
Crocetti, who is Associate Commissioner for Examinations, and on 
my right is David Rosenberg, Director of Citizenship USA. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, can I just add a word of wel- 
come to Mr. Rosenberg? 

Senator SiMPSON. Yes, Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. He hails from the State of Massachusetts and 
was very much involved in the State programs and brings a rather 
specialized understanding of what is happening in the States on 

immigration issues and how they are deahng with a lot of the ac- 
tivities. He has been a great resource for professional guidance to 
the subcommittee, and I am delighted that the Service has drawn 
on you, Mr. Rosenberg, to help and assist in these naturalization 
programs. It is good to see you. 

Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you. Senator, 

Senator SiMPSON. Are you trying to rehabilitate the witness? 

I believe the other day I made some reference to some "political 
hack," not knowing what name there might have been, and I cer- 
tainly did not know that — I was given that information from the 
House Operations Committee. 

Senator Kennedy. That was a little dangerous. 

Senator SiMPSON. It was; I can see it was. But you are a profes- 
sional person. You have been involved in this in Massachusetts and 
here, and your dalliance in politics has been minimal, is that cor- 

Mr. Rosenberg. I think that would be a good way to put it, yes. 

Senator SiMPSON. But vigorous? 

Mr. Rosenberg. And I hope effective. 

Senator Simpson. Oh, I see; well, that is true. 

Mr. Rosenberg. But thank you. Senator. I appreciate that. It 
was a little distressing to me, in that I have worked with this sub- 
committee since 1986, perhaps a little less memorably than I had 
thought, but I do appreciate the opportunity to correct the record. 

Senator Simpson. Well, I thank you, and I certainly wanted to 
correct it myself because that information did not come from Dick 
Day and my crew. It came from, apparently, a hearing over there, 
or some statement that was never corrected. Is that right? 

Mr. Rosenberg. I am not aware where it came from. I do know 
that the House did have all of my information. 

Senator Simpson. It was some subcommittee. Anyway, thank you 
very much. It is good to have you here. 

Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you. 

Senator Simpson. Section 312 of the INA requires and sets forth 
certain naturalization requirements with respect to English lan- 
guage ability and knowledge of U.S. history and understanding of 
U.S. history and Government. My first question is how did the INS 
determine what should be the required level of ability to speak, 
read, and write English, and the required knowledge of U.S. his- 
tory and Government, and how did the Agency develop its methods 
of assessing whether naturaUzation apphcants have that ability 
and that knowledge? 

I understand that one of the written questions on U.S. history 
and Government is as simple as what are the colors of the flag. Do 
you believe questions as simplistic as that have any relationship at 
all to what Congress is trjdng to, see as the intent when we passed 
section 312? 

Mr. Aleinikoff. Well, in answer to the first part of the question, 
Mr. Chairman, historically the Immigration Service has relied sole- 
ly on its examiners to develop questions appropriate for meeting 
the statutory requirements. That would be true of the test of good 
moral character and other requirements under the statute. This 


goes back many years. There was no study done originally in com- 
ing up with questions. 

In the 1980's, there was an attempt to standardize the set of 
questions and a set of materials that applicants could study in 
order to answer questions, and a set of 100 questions were devel- 
oped for information and advice for our examiners in the field. 
They are not required to use these questions, but most, in fact, 
draw from this set of questions. 

The idea there was to have a set of questions that would test 
general information about the Government and about the history 
of this country. Accompan3ring those questions was a set of teach- 
ing materials, a set of texts that the applicant could read and glean 
the important information about the functioning of our Grovem- 
ment. These steps to standardize, we are not sure have gone far 
enough and we are in the process now of putting out formal solici- 
tations for proposals to develop a new civics test for us by civics 
experts, outside civics experts, that will appropriately test history 
and knowledge. 

It is not to say that the prior tests were not appropriate tests. 
It is just that we think it is time to have an outside body of experts 
come in and tell us whether or not they were an appropriate set 
of questions and, if not, what set of questions might more appro- 
priately test that. But this goes back many, many years in the 

Senator Simpson. Congressional intent is an ephemeral thing, 
but for this Congressperson you would want a test that wasn't too 
hard and wasn't too easy. It is very simple. You don't want some- 
thing that is like the old days of the poll tax or something. We are 
not talking about that, but we don't want something like, you 
know, what are the colors of the flag. I mean, that is an assault 
on common sense. 

So I think that these outside experts, when they finish their 
work — it would be very good to submit them to the House and Sen- 
ate committees before implementing and before getting it out into 
any further realm. Would you believe that that would be appro- 

Mr. Alee^ikoff. Absolutely appropriate, and we look forward to 
working with the committee to work on — I mean, I think it is an 
interesting national question about what we think the appropriate 
body of information is and it is one that we should have a public 
discussion of. 

Senator Simpson. I think, if nothing else, that that would be a 
very important part of this hearing that when you get to that 
point, submit those to the ranking members and the chairmen, 
both parties, of the House and Senate committees responsible for 
this issue. 

Mr. Aleinikoff. We will do so. 

Senator Simpson. Thank you very much. Now, I believe the INS 
does about 75 percent of the testing for English literacy and knowl- 
edge of history and Government. The rest is done by outside con- 
tractors. This is where the controversy seems to have sprung that 
there has been alleged fraud, such as examiners giving answers to 
the persons they are supposed to be testing. 


Could you describe very briefly how you select these contractors. 
One was a group that had been very adept in driver's license appli- 
cation approval and, I would think, have little idea or understand- 
ing of the Federal Government and its systems, but that is another 
matter. How do you monitor them in order to prevent fraud, and 
after you have instituted these changes since the controversy in 
order to make the fraud less likely, what have been the changes? 
I guess, given the risk of what has happened, why do you feel that 
the INS should not do all the testing itself? We would rather give 
the resources to the INS to do the job and not have these other 

Mr. Aleinikoff. Well, we take the issue of fraud very seriously 
and we have taken a number of important steps since the begin- 
ning of this calendar year on the monitoring, and let me briefly de- 
scribe them. In the early part of this year, we required all our test- 
ing entities — and I should say the testing entities were approved 
under a notice in the Federal Register in 1991 that set out a set 
of requirements that one had to meet to be authorized. There are 
six national testing entities, and then they enter into agreements 
with local affiliates that do the testing on their behalf. 

In January 1996, we required the testing entities to submit plans 
as to how they intend to monitor their affiliates. We have also re- 
cently, in the last few months, sent memos to our field offices re- 
quiring them to do spot checks of these affiliates. Since January of 
this year, 42 affiliates have been closed either by our action or by 
the action of the testing entities. 

We have obtained criminal convictions in Honolulu in one situa- 
tion where a testing entity was giving away answers and we 
thought that was inappropriate, obviously inappropriate. We have 
17 other pending investigations into local affiliates. Importantly, on 
October 1 of this year, we instituted a new set of rules that the en- 
tities are now following which requires INS approval of all local af- 
filiates, which had not been done before, and it requires that the 
affiliates have testing experience before they can take on the job 
of giving the test. 

We have imposed stricter monitoring requirements by the out- 
side groups. They now must monitor all their affiliates at least 
twice a year, and we have also entered into a contract with an out- 
side group on our behalf who will do monitoring of these entities. 
So we really have a triple monitoring program now in place. The 
outside entities themselves must monitor their affiliates twice a 
year. Our outside contractor will do unannounced visits, about 100 
a month, when they get up and running of these affiliates, and our 
investigators will go out and look at these testing entities. So we 
think it is a much more secure process than it was when it began 
a number of years ago. 

Senator SiMPSON. Thank you very much. 

Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank you. As I understand it, they are re- 
viewing now the two tests. One is the English, and also the civics 
test. Are they being reviewed in terms of what should be the stand- 
ard in terms of the future? 


Mr. Aleinikoff. We will be putting out formal solicitations for 
bids by outside experts to help us develop and train and validate 

Senator Kennedy. And when do you expect that decisions will be 
made on those? 

Mr. Aleinikoff. We expect the work will be completed by the 
end of this fiscal year. 

Senator Kennedy. Some of these, I would agree with Senator 
Simpson, are probably unworthy of being on the exam. You have 
got some others that are pretty hard, I think — how many changes 
or amendments are there to the Constitution? You know, I think 
some people might think about that. You have got. "What is the 
most important right granted to U.S. citizens?" "Where does free- 
dom of speech come from, and a basic belief of the Declaration of 

You can go through and see some that wouldn't really reflect a 
knowledge, but there are some in here that I think would be chal- 
lenging for most high school graduates. I understand that the test 
itself was given to high school students in one particular State and 
the majority didn't pass it. So I think we are all interested in get- 
ting something that is, as you mentioned, going to be reflective of 
a knowledge of the English language, the ability to read, write, and 
speak words in ordinary usage in the English language, and knowl- 
edge of the attachment to principles of history and Government. I 
think we agree. I think it is worthwhile having assurance that 
those are the tests that we really have. 

Let me just go briefly into what are some of the improvements 
in the naturalization program. If you can go through those very — 
you know, there are a series of those, but maybe you would just 
touch on them quickly. I understand reference has been made to 
the FBI. In the transition, there were some mistakes that were 
made in terms of sorting out those that had a criminal record in 
the past, but that has, as I understand, been remedied. But maybe 
you would just go down very, very quickly about what you under- 
stand are some of the improvements. 

Mr. Aleinikoff. I would be happy to do those quickly. First of 
all, we are now opening our mail and entering data into our sys- 
tems. When we started Citizenship USA, we discovered that in two 
of our largest districts there were boxes of files that had never been 
entered into the data system because we didn't have enough clerks 
and support staff to do that. So we have gotten on top of our incom- 
ing applications and putting them in the system. 

We are giving people who now apply receipts that, in fact, their 
application has been received and that they will be scheduled for 
an interview. We have established a direct mail process where peo- 
ple, rather than having to come in to the district office and inun- 
date the district local office with files, are mailing their applica- 
tions to our remote processing centers, where the file is opened and 
entered into the data system. Sixty percent of our applications now 
go through direct mail, which relieves a huge burden on the district 
and on the applicant as well, who doesn't have to wait in long lines 
to file the application. 

We have made significant improvements in our fingerprint proc- 
ess. That is a longer answer I would be happy to give further infor- 


mation on. We have tightened up the testing entities, as we pointed 
out. I think, though, actually, the fundamental change under Citi- 
zenship USA was increasing the number of adjudicators to handle 
the incoming flow. 

It is a similar solution that we applied to our asylum process. We 
didn't change the asylum process. We didn't lower the standards. 
We simply found more people to handle more cases and people 
were processed in a timely way, as with Citizenship USA. We 
didn't change the standards or the process. We simply have identi- 
fied and used more people to handle what was a sea of applications 
that we received over the last few years. 

Senator Kennedy. OK There may be some other questions, Mr. 
Chgdrman, but I thank you very much. 

Senator Simpson. Thank you, Ted. We have a long agenda. There 
will be questions I will submit in writing. A later witness will come 
on to say that the minimum pass rate for the civics exam is 70 per- 
cent of the 20 questions asked — that we should raise it to 70 per- 
cent; that it is presently 60 percent, which is a D-minus, I think, 
in most high school grading systems in most States. I want to find 
out if you are going to change that level, and some of that. 

Then, for the record, I just want to enter this, and this is not a 
flash point, but I think it is very important. A person who is not 
here as part of this first panel — on Monday, the subcommittee in- 
vited Mr. Doug Farbrother, who is an official with the Vice Presi- 
dent's Office of National Performance Review. They have been in- 
volved in this; we all know that. 

In documents presented to the Congress and are here today, Mr. 
Farbrother talks about the concern that the Citizenship USA Pro- 
gram would produce 1 million new citizens. This is his E-mail; this 
is E-mail to the Vice President. Elaine Kamarck — and her name 
pops up throughout, but it is from Doug Farbrother and it says: 

No, sir, the bet was not just about Kelly Girls. I had bet Elaine that INS head- 
quarters would not give their managers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, 
New York, and Miami enough authority, in general, to make me confident they 
could produce 1 million new citizens before election day. Unfortunately, I was right. 

What do you think of that? 

Mr. Aleinikoff. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have not seen any of 
these E-mails. The first I saw them was in a newspaper report yes- 
terday morning, and I must say I was rather surprised and, in one 
instance, stunned by what I saw in them. 

Let me be clear on the role that the National Performance Re- 
view office played in Citizenship USA. We announced Citizenship 
USA in August 1995. We set our goals. We opened up new offices 
in our major cities. We hired adjudicators. We assigned experienced 
site managers to those places. In December 1995, we were des- 
ignated as a reinvention lab by the Justice Performance Review, 
the part of the Justice Department of the reengineering Govern- 
ment initiative. So we were up and running by the first quarter of 
1996, fiscal year 1996. 

In the spring, in February or March 1996, the National Perform- 
ance Review from the Vice President's ofRce came into our sites 
and were interested in helping us to reinvent the process, to re- 
engineer the process. We had already started our process, as I said, 
and set our goals and we were well underway. They made a num- 


ber of recommendations on how we could change our process, some 
of which we accepted, but most of which we rejected. 

What Mr. Farbrother is referring to here, I think, is a request 
that headquarters delegate all its authority over the process to the 
field offices. His view was, I believe, as he expressed it to us, if you 
just freed up your local field people, they could do the work and 
get the job done. We thought that was a ludicrous idea. 

What we were trying to do was standardize the process. We had 
a direct mail process, as I have explained it, that required mailing 
applications to our remote service centers. We were concerned 
about testing. We were concerned about monitoring. We did not 
think it was appropriate to delegate more authority and we told 
them so, and that request did not go forward. So we think he was 
fundamentally mistaken in his analysis and we did not act upon 

Senator Simpson. No, but I think it is disturbing because I think 
any of us. Senator Kennedy or myself — I am not interested in see- 
ing the White House or the INS register people Democrat or Re- 
publican. That is a distortion of everything American. If these peo- 
ple are to be naturalized, it is fine to give them a voter registration 
card, although I have some problems with that one, too, but you 
don't get them in so you can register them for one party and then 
poUticize your Agency, which I insist has happened, and it has hap- 
pened without the approval and I think the knowledge of Doris 

I think she has been hammered from down underneath by politi- 
cal people who quicken the pace of naturalization, who are trying 
to do things in a way that I don't think is good. I think it is unwise 
speaking about naturalization in a political manner and I think it 
taints the INS. So I am concerned that partisan desires may have 
pushed the INS more swiftly than is prudent. I personally am not 
concerned about the party affiliation of our newest citizens. 

Let me just share this with you. Two days later — I have the 
other E-mail and I will just put all this in the record. 

[The information referred to was not available at presstime.J 

Senator SiMPSON. I would like to quote: 

Today, Chris Sale delegated hiring authority to the five cities and increased their 
budgets by 20 percent. She also streamlined the backgroimd clearance process some, 
but still anticipates a month-and-a-half to two months to get people on board. 

So it did happen and it was a rather swift response. 

Mr. Aleinikoff. Well, as I said, there were some suggestions 
that NPR made to us. One of importance to us was they looked at 
how long it was taking us to hire people. Our problem was we had 
a lot of adjudicators we needed to bring on. Because of the budget 
crisis and the furloughs, we were unable to do that. We were be- 
hind in achieving our goals for the year because of that. 

NPR looked around and said, gee, you could hire your folks much 
more quickly if your background check — without changing the 
standards, if you simply got the FBI to respond more quickly to you 
on fingerprint checks, you could bring people on in a much shorter 
period of time. We took their advice on that one and we are glad 
we did. We have now used that with the hiring of many of our per- 
sonnel. It was an efficiency in the process without a sacrifice of 
standards. So on that one, that is correct. 


Senator SiMPSON. Well, I have taken extra time and Senator 
Kennedy is certainly entitled to any further, if he wishes. I just 
wanted to clarify that something is going on and somebody would 
have to know that something is going on when you get that kind 
of E-mail floating around in the system. 

Mr. Aleinikoff. Well, if I could. Senator, I agree with you en- 
tirely that the naturahzation process cannot and will not and 
should not be poUticized. This is a precious right, as you describe. 
The Immigration Service went into Citizenship USA knowing the 
importance of citizenship and respecting that importance. We did 
not permit it to become poUticized and we will not do so. 

Senator SiMPSON. Well, you can't. It is disgusting in prospect to 
me as a citizen of the United States, not as a U.S. Senator. 

Did you have something to add, Mr. Rosenberg? 

Mr. Rosenberg. I would just say it is also a dangerous precedent 
for us if that were to occur. Certainly, we were careful from the 
very beginning to protect the whole nature of the process. It is not 
to say that there weren't people who had their own ideas on why 
they might think this was a good idea around the country, but it 
is to say that the INS did not act on that. 

Senator Simpson. Well, I thank you. 

Senator Kennedy. Just briefly, as I understand, Farbrother is a 
career civil servant and is over in the Pentagon. As I understand 
it, he is not a poKtical figure, as has been represented to me. The 
other point is that if they have been doing it for political purposes, 
here you have the RepubUcan Congressperson in Miami, Rep- 
resentative Ros-Lehtinen, who testified in the House that the new 
citizens in Miami are registering as Republicans 6 to 8 times the 
rate they are registering as Democrats. Mayor Giuliani in New 
York, a RepubUcan mayor, has welcomed and commended Citizen- 
ship USA. 

I agree, certsiinly, with the thrust of Senator Simpson's — but, of 
course, here you had George Bush appearing in the Orange Bowl 
6 weeks before the Republican election the last time out for all new 
immigrants in Miami in the last presidential election. He wasn't 
out there, I don't beUeve, just urging good citizenship. There was 
certainly a patina of interest in terms of encouraging them to vote 
in that campaign. 

I agree with Senator Simpson that this ought to be done for the 
reasons that he has outUned — ^you know, there are going to be en- 
thusiastic people in different places that are going to carry these 
things on. We are all aware of that. I mean, I used to write people 
in my own State of Massachusetts every time they became a citi- 
zen. I wrote them and congratulated them. My Republican col- 
league never did. Some would say, well, that is politicization of the 
process. There are all kinds of ways of doing it and I think all of 
us want to make sure that it is done in the ways in which it should 
be done, and that is devoid of as much partisanship as possible. 

Senator SiMPSON. I think that is true. I think there is no more 
moving thing than to go to one of those ceremonies, and you and 
I have been there. When they turn in their green card and raise 
their right hand and suddenly they have that piece of paper in 
their hand and have sworn an oath and allegiance, that is a very 
moving thing. We don't want to tarnish it, certainly. 


I thank you very much. You have been very helpful, very helpful. 
I will have more questions to submit in writing. 
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aleinikoff follows:] 

Prepared Statement of T. Alexander Aleinikoff 

Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to share with the 
Committee the recent achievements of the Immigration and NaturaUzation Service 
(INS) to process the largest number of applications for citizenship in our nation's 
history in a fair, accurate, and timely manner. At the same time that our border 
and worksite enforcement and removal efforts have gained pubUc attention and 
been supported by unprecedented levels of Congressional appropriations, our Citi- 
zenship USA program has made the "N" and "S" of INS a reahty for over one mil- 
hon fee-paying legal immigrants who have played by the rules and sought, as gen- 
erations before them, to become United States citizens. We are proud of our accom- 
plishments in the first year of Citizenship USA. We have successfully adjudicated 
1.3 million naturalization appUcations, resulting in 1.1 million new American citi- 
zens without reducing standards or compromising the integrity of the adjudication. 
We have reduced processing times for citizenship applications nationwide to tradi- 
tional levels while maintaining the integrity of the citizenship process, and have ini- 
tiated major improvements to natiiralization procedures and operations. We have 
reached out to local officials, civic associations and community service organizations 
throughout the country to involve communities in training, assisting and preparing 
legal immigrants for the citizenship process and welcoming successful applicants as 
new Americans. By redesigning outmoded processing methods, we have dem- 
onstrated that a Federal government agency can respond to an unprecedented work- 
load increase and fulfill its obUgation to maintsiin the public trust. Our efforts have 
received bipartisan support from Congress and other elected officials. 


Let me bnefly review the history of Citizenship USA. Improvement of the natu- 
ralization program has been a high priority for Commissioner Meissner fi"om the 
time she came to INS in October, 1993. At her confirmation hearing before this com- 
mittee, she expressed her belief about the importance of naturalization for immi- 
grants, for their communities, for the INS and for America. And she stated her in- 
tention for the Service to be "much more active * * * were naturalization is con- 

We designed Citizenship USA to address a particular crisis we faced in fiscal year 
1995: a huge and growing backlog of naturaUzation applications. In many places, 
long-term legal permanent residents would apply and pay their fee — naturalization 
is not paid out of general revenue — and then had to wait two to four years to com- 
plete the naturalization process. Such procedural delays were and are not acceptable 
to the INS, to the Congress or to the Ainerican people. 

By early fiscal year 1995, INS was receiving appUcations for citizenship at an un- 
precedented rate, eventually over one miUion for the year, nearly twice as many as 
the previous year. By the end of fiscal year 1995, we had over 800,000 pending nat- 
iU"alization applications and only enough staff to adjudicate little more than hzdf 
that many. The gap between our workload and our capacity was already large and 
was becoming overwhelming. About 75 percent of the pending caseload was con- 
centrated in five of our 36 Districts: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami and 
San Francisco. As the attached chsirt shows, increases were everywhere, but were 
most prevalent in these five districts. (Attachment 1) 

Applicants' fees, plus appUcable penalties, pay for the entire naturalization pro- 
gram, unless Congress makes specific additional appropriations. Congress did not 
appropriate funds, but did approve our reprogramming requests to respond to this 
massive naturalization workload. 

In approving our two reprogramming requests, (which were initially targeted to 
the five districts with the greatest need and later extended to permit temporary hir- 
ing in 15 additional districts with smaller, but significant backlogs), provided ap- 
proximately $80 milhon in additional spending authority for naturaUzation in fiscal 
year 1996. 

In his January 16, 1996 approval letter, Subcommittee Chairman Rogers (R-KY) 
wrote: "I * * * understand that with these additional resources INS intends to re- 
duce backlogs in naturaUzation and adjustment of status appUcations so that by 
mid-summer, eUgible persons will become citizens within six months after applying 
* * * I am pleased that the INS is recognizing this significant workload and ad- 
dressing it in this reprogramming by hiring temporary employees to handle the 


processing of workload in the six cities ^ that continue to have the largest voliune 
of these apphcations." 

Citizenship USA is a three-pronged strategy focused on Personnel, Process and 
Partnership. First and most critically, we are augmenting personnel dedicated to 
naturahzation cases. Second, are re-examining our work processes to improve effi- 
ciency and quahty. And third, we are developing partnerships with organizations to 
help prepare applicants and apphcations. 


The reprogramming approval permitted us to hire over 1,000 adjudications per- 
sonnel and data entry contract employees. Previously, we detailed INS employees 
from other offices, aU of whom volunteered to be part of this project, to key districts, 
in order to prevent the backlog from worsening in key districts. All workers — perma- 
nent, temporary and contract — received appropriate secmity clearances and training 
and are supervised by experienced INS personnel. 

In the five key districts, we opened nine new Citizenship Centers, newly eqviipped 
with updated technology, mostly located in areas that are more accessible to appli- 
cants or in areas that are some distance from existing INS citizenship services. 


We are in the midst of modernizing and improving processing of naturalization 
apphcations without compromising our standards. In fact, our denial rate during fis- 
cal year 1996 has risen to 17 percent, consistent with our shghtly higher than tradi- 
tional rates. 


In our four largest districts (Los Angeles, New York, Miami, and Chicago) appli- 
cants can now send their natiirahzation forms directly to INS Service Centers, rath- 
er than having to travel to District offices simply to file their application. This 
streamlining allows INS to centraUze and perform data entry and other administra- 
tive support functions much more quickly, and frees District Office personnel to con- 
centrate on interviews and other adjudicative functions. It better serves our cus- 
tomers, who now receive prompt letters acknowledging their applications are being 
processed and informing them of approximate processing times. Again, this reduces 
phone and personal inquiries to district offices. Advanced technology also enables 
us to speed processing, reduce the potential for clerical error, and be more cost-effec- 
tive. In a pilot program, we are testing 2-D bar-coding and optical scanning of the 
N-400 apphcation. 


We have made many improvements to the fingerprint clearance process to make 
it as efficient and thorough as possible, thus protecting the integrity of the process. 

Recent media reports reflect a misunderstanding of what we are doing, so I would 
like to explain the fingerprint clearance process. Each naturalization applicant be- 
tween the ages of 14 and 79 must submit a fingerprint card to INS with their appli- 
cation. The district office sends the fingerprint card to the FBI. The FBI reports to 
INS as to whether there is a mateh with its files, and where there is a match, FBI 
provides the record to INS. We receive a positive response, or "hit" from the FBI 
in only a small percentage of cases. Since the FBI database includes not only convic- 
tions, but £dso records of arrests and administrative processing by INS, the number 
of records which represent disqualifying convictions that would bar naturalization 
are a fraction of the "hits." Notwithstanding, all "hits" are reviewed by the adjudica- 
tor and scrutinized to determine bearing on "good moral character." 

In 1982, the INS adopted a pohcy of waiting 60 days aft;er fingerprints were sub- 
mitted to the FBI before processing an apphcation. In discussions with the FBI at 
that time, this was determined to be an adequate timeframe in which to process the 
fingerprints. No response fix>m the FBI within that timeframe was assumed to mean 
that there was no mateh with its records. In 1994, the Department of Justice's In- 
spector General expressed serious concerns about the safeguards in several aspects 
of the fingerprint clearance procedures. We have taken vigorous steps to address 
these concerns. 

^Congressman Rogers mentioned six cities because the reprogramming covered additional 
stafT to handle both backlogged naturalization and adjustment of status applications. In addition 
to the other five cities, Newark, New Jersey received staff increases for adjustment applications. 


In June, INS established the Fingerprint Clearance Coordination Center (FCCC) 
at the INS Service Center in Lincoln, Nebraska to centralize the receipt and proc- 
essing of all FBI responses. This allows us to coordinate internal agency processing 
and provide the FBI record immediately to the responsible field office's designated 
point-of-contact for matching with the applicant's file. The FCCC also communicates 
directly with the applicant if they submit unclassifiable fingerprints, relieving the 
district offices of this administrative task. The new centrahzed system also allows 
for data collection and ansdyses that were nonexistent under the prior process. 
Through this centralization, we now know that "hits" are reaching the district of- 
fices before the adjudication is finalized. 

Fully 95.1 percent of the fingerprint checks are completed within 60 days, and 
98.5 percent are completed within 90 days. Nonetheless, in order to ensure that ad- 
judication does not precede completion of the FBI database search, field offices are 
not permitted to complete the benefit adjudication process in less than 120 days 
from the date the fingerprint card was forwarded to the FBI, luiless a response is 
received before that time. This ensures that in virtually all cases, the district has 
FBI's response to the fingerprint check before a benefit is granted. 

As a further step, the FBI has recently begun producing for INS an "Aging Re- 
port" of all cases in which the FBI has not completed its processing within 90-days. 
This enables INS to place a hold on these specific files untU the fingerprint clear- 
ance process has been completed. This important report will tell us definitively 
whether the fingerprint check is complete in each individual instance. The FBI has 
also agreed to provide INS a paper record of all negative records, or "no hit", find- 
ings. We are actively in the process of developing technology that will allow us to 
download electronically all FBI responses (negative and positive) into INS 

Another significant improvement begins on January 1, 1997, when INS will accept 
fingerprint cards only from Designated Fingerprint Service (DFS) providers and rec- 
ognized law enforcement agencies. This is the first time that INS has regulated who 
takes fingerprints. We will use contractor and Service personnel to conduct random 
and unannounced audits. We expect this program to improve the quality of finger- 
print cards submitted, increase safeguards for identify verification of the applicant 
and reduce the need to reject fingerprint cards. 

In a very small number of cases, both in the past and recently, FBI record 
matches have been received after a benefit has been granted. We are currently con- 
ducting a siu-vey or our field offices to determine the precise number of cases in 
which the district has become aware of a disqualifying conviction after the individ- 
ual has been naturahzed. Preliminary indications are that only several dozen indi- 
viduals out of the more than 1.2 million naturalization applicants processed this 
year have been wrongly naturalized. In each of these cases, we will take appropriate 
action to revoke naturalization. In fact, a final rule will be published in the Federal 
Register shortly which will provide administrative procedures for de-naturalization 
which will be much simpler than the current judicial procedures. 


Some concerns have been expressed about the outside testing program. We share 
those concerns and have acted to improve the program. I must underscore, however, 
ultimate decision-making has always rested with the INS adjudicator. A certificate 
from a private citizenship testing service noting the successful completion of a 
standardized test on written English and civics, does not guarantee an appUcant's 
naturalization. Every naturalization applicant is interviewed by an INS Adjudica- 
tions Officer. During this interview, an applicant must demonstrate that he or she 
is a person of good moral character, has been a lawfiil permanent resident of the 
United States for the required amount of time, is personally attached to the prin- 
ciples of the United States Constitution, and possesses an ability to speak English 
words and phrases in ordinary usage, unless the applicant is statutorily exempt 
from the English language requirements. Applicants who cannot communicate in 
basic English to the adjudicator, and who are not exempt by statute fi-om the Eng- 
lish proficiency requirement, are not eligible for naturalization even if they possess 
a certificate from a private citizenship testing organization. Seventy-five percent of 
our naturalization appUcants are tested by INS on English and civics during the 
naturalization interview. Only twenty-five percent use the services of a private test- 
ing organization. 

We have strengthened the management of the external civics testing program and 
added new requirements for monitoring and test integrity since it was established 
in 1991. Improved standards and increased monitoring to achieve compliance will 
directly reduce the opportunity for fi*aud. We are reviewing the testing organiza- 


tions' own commitments to self-policing, regularly informing them of policy and pro- 
cediiral changes which affect their operations, and reminding our field offices of 
their monitoring and inspection responsibilities with regard to the private testing 

The six national testing organizations must now comply with the following re- 

All new testing afiihates must be approved by INS Headquarters after we consult 
with the appropriate local ENS office; 

All new affiliates must demonstrate educational testing experience; 

Test scoring must not take place in the presence of test takers; 

Identification doctunents of test takers must be closely scrutinized to eliminate 
the possibiUty of a person substituting for another during test administration; 

Dictation of the English sentences used for proof of written English proficiency 
must meet more stringent requirements; and 

Testing fees must not be combined with fees for other services, so that local affili- 
ates do not circumvent the requirement that the testing fee be reasonable. 

In addition, national testing organizations will be required to report to INS: 

The complete testing schedule for all affihates; 

The names of all persons passing a test (and shall set up special telephone service 
for INS to verify the vaUdity of a test certificate); and 

Monthly resiilts of the organization's own monitoring efforts, including any sites 
that are closed for cause. 

INS recently contracted with a private security firm for supplemental monitoring 
of testing sites. In this way, we are now monitoring testing sites in several ways: 

Through investigations and unannounced site visits by both INS and the INS-con- 
tracted organization; through the six national organizations monitoring their affili- 
ates; and through our own examiners monitoring the quaUty of applicants who ap- 
pear for interview with certificates frova the outside testing entities. 

Finally, the Service is engaged in a fiindamental review of oxir testing policies and 
procedures. Among the options being considered are the hmiting testing authoriza- 
tion to no-for-profit and recognized educational testing organizations, as well as a 
possible return to INS-only testing of natiiraUzation appUcants on Enghsh and 
civics. We anticipate a final poUcy decision by the Commissioner within the next few 


The ENS is in the process of revising the method by which we determine a natu- 
ralization applicant's English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and govern- 
ment. Liack of standardization among ENS offices has, for some time, led to incon- 
sistent standards. We are working with recognized experts in linguistics to develop 
standardized tests which will accurately determine an applicant's English pro- 
ficiency and we are pursuing a similar approach to redesign the testing for knowl- 
edge of American civics. The st£mdardized tests and accompanying educational ma- 
terials which wiU be developed as a result of these efforts will be used in all INS 
offices as well as by any organization authorized by INS to conduct testing. 


Citizenship USA also stresses expanding ENS' partnerships with schools, civic as- 
sociations, state and local officials and community organizations, to provide better 
service to citizenship appUcants. These organizations offer information, application 
assistance, and English and civics classes to prospective citizens. In some Districts, 
INS officers conduct interviews in community sites. As a result of these partner- 
ships, ENS receives better-prepared apphcations and has fewer "no-shows" at the 
interviews. ENS provides no funding and msikes no payments for these activities, 
with the exception of one congressionaUy-mandated pilot project in Southern Cali- 
fornia. Only trained INS Adjudications Officers conduct naturalization interviews 
and adjudicate apphcations; these responsibihties are not delegated to any other 

Community organizations, schools, foundations and clubs also play an active role 
in celebrating citizenship at swearing-in ceremonies, as they have for decades. Such 
partnership efforts help to build bridges and create cohesion between new Ameri- 
cans and established communities. 



The Citizenship USA initiative is an ongoing project of the Service, and we expect 
it to continue for the next several years as its innovations are institutionalized 
throughout our system. As of today, naturalization applications are being processed 
within acceptable timeframes. The number of incoming applications continues at 
record levels, and we expect that it will remain high in the coming year. Ovu* focus 
is to maintain our new level of capacity nationwide, to utilize additional means to 
ensure the quality and timeliness of our adjudications, and to serve as a catalyst 
for broad conununity participation in citizenship. 

As I have described, the Immigration and NaturaUzation Service is meeting an 
enormous challenge, implementing an innovative and responsive naturalization re- 
form program with professionalism and soUd performance. As the Commissioner has 
stated many times, she is very proud of the women and men of the Service. Admin- 
istering the system that decides who can become a citizen of the United States is 
a high honor and a great responsibility. The American people can remain confident 
that we are dedicated to carrying out this public trust fully and faithfully. 

Attachment 1 
N-400 Pending Caseload by District— September 1995 

Pending AOE ■ 

Total Pending 





Los Angeles 

New York City ... 
San Francisco ... 







San Diego 

El Paso 




Washington, DC 



San Antonio 



New Orleans 



San Juan 


Kansas City 


Portland, OR 

St. Paul 




Portland, ME 






































































'Applications Data Entered (ADE) are applications entered into the Naturalization Automated casework System (NACS). Applications Not 
Data Entered (ANDE) are applications accepted by a District mailroom, but not data entered into NACS. 

Senator Simpson. Now panel two is Paul Roberts, the chief exec- 
utive officer of NaturaUzation Assistance Services, Inc.; and Rich- 
ard Krieger, vice president of Marich Associates, Inc. Welcome to 
both of you and we will look forward to having your remarks for 


the record. Again, there is the time hmitation and we thank you 
for observing that. 

So if you will proceed in that order, Mr. Roberts, it is nice to see 
you again. Did you rest well? You did. I saw you last evening. It 
is not as bad as you think. It could get worse. Oh, no, no. I am 
sorry. Welcome. It is good to have you here, so if you want to give 
us a brief summary? 



Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Senator. Good morning. My name is 
Paul Roberts and I am the CEO of Naturalization Assistance Serv- 
ices, Inc. I would like to thank the chairman and members of the 
subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you today con- 
cerning the INS standardized citizenship testing program and the 
role Nat\u*aHzation Assistance Services has played, in partnership 
with INS, in making the program a success. 

NAS has over 2 years' field experience in the testing program, 
and although the program has not been flawless, NAS is proud 
that it has tested almost 150,000 prospective Americans and en- 
abled many to become part of the American dream. NAS is con- 
stantly striving to improve testing security and integrity, and to 
that end NAS has increased security measures to further ensure 
that NAS Hcensees strictly adhere to all rules and regulations. 

As a matter of fact, an executive session to analyze and strength- 
en NAS procediu-es in the area of compliance and security is occur- 
ring as we speak. NAS has a zero-tolerance policy for cheating, and 
the record will reflect that NAS has acted swiftly to revoke all li- 
censees discovered and engaging in improprieties. 

From the onset of NAS' participation in this program, it was evi- 
dent to us that the concept of a partnership between the Govern- 
ment and private industry would require constant vigilance and co- 
operation between the two parties to ensure that the program's ob- 
jectives and requirements were met to ensure the highest stand- 
ards for admitting applicants to citizenship. 

In that light, NAS has worked closely with INS to keep them in- 
formed of our activities and operational methodologies, with the 
goal of maintaining and increasing quality control. We have partici- 
pated in numerous conference calls and meetings between INS and 
the other nationally-approved testing entities. We have partici- 
pated in national meetings of the national entities and the Service 
at INS headquarters. We maintain an ongoing dialog with des- 
ignated INS Uaison officials, and NAS conducts national con- 
ferences for all of our licensees in which the latest standards and 
procedures are reviewed and implemented. An NAS national con- 
ference for licensees will be conducted in November. 

Mr. Mike Williams, the former Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, 
and Mr. Dale Cozart, former Chief of the San Diego sector of the 
U.S. Border Patrol, will direct all compliance and security activities 
for NAS. This will ensure that NAS' licensees administer the 


standardized citizenship test in a manner that preserves examina- 
tion security and integrity. 

In addition, NAS has employed additional security and compli- 
ance personnel who will make random and unannounced visits to 
our licensees' test sites, which would also include undercover oper- 
ations. NAS has increased screening and monitoring of its licensees 
and we will continue to suspend and cancel any licensee who de- 
parts from our standards of integrity. 

NAS has requested INS to raise the minimum pass percentage 
of examinations from 60 percent to 70 percent. NAS discussions 
with members of our advisory board revealed that the increased 
passing percentage would raise the bar for applicants and would 
enhance the program by ensuring the applicants possess sufficient 
knowledge of the topics addressed by the examination. 

We also believe that the elimination of a program standard 
which requires that administrators read test questions orally to ap- 
plicants would enhance the test's ability to assess an applicant's 
English comprehension. Elimination of this program standard 
would enable test centers to simultaneously distribute different se- 
ries of examinations to applicants, thereby significantly reducing 
the possibility of cheating by the applicants. 

For example, if proctors were not required to read the questions 
aloud during the test, each applicant could be given a different test 
drawing from the same bank of questions, thereby preventing ap- 
plicants from copying one another's answers. NAS is implementing 
an exit identification process in which applicants will be required 
to display their green card and the completed test book filed prior 
to leaving the testing area. We also plan on implementing a finger- 
print program for all testing applicants. Specifically, we plan to 
modify our test booklets to accommodate thumb prints for each ap- 
plicant who participates in the program. 

There certainly are some m3^hs that surround the program and 
I would like to talk about a couple of those, two of them. One is 
that by passing a standardized citizenship test, that person auto- 
matically becomes a U.S. citizen. That is not true. The second one 
is that we guarantee citizenship by passing standardized tests. The 
standardized citizenship test does not certify an applicant's eligi- 
bility for citizenship, nor does it certify one's proficiency in spoken 

Another myth is that taking a test with a national entity puts 
an applicant at the head of the citizenship queue and this is simply 
not true, also. Another myth is that the program is not adminis- 
tered with the highest level of test security and integrity. NAS' vig- 
ilance in this area has led to the investigation and cancellation of 
licensees who have not met our high standards for test administra- 
tion and security. 

We have always worked in cooperation with the INS, including 
working directly with INS agents in the investigation and, when 
necessary, prosecution of persons and firms involved in alleged im- 
proprieties. We recognize that these efforts require a continual re- 
view to improve our techniques. 

The final m3rth is that the standardized citizenship test is pri- 
marily delivered by small, unreliable licensees. NAS includes 
among its licensees the following organizations: Catholic Charities; 


American Red Cross; United Farm Workers; Dade County Public 
Schools; Collier County Public Schools; Riverside, CA, Public 
Schools; New Haven, CT, adult education centers; Solano County, 
CA, Department of Health and Social Services. Finally, all of our 
Hcensees are subject to the same guidelines and procedures for 
maintaining examination security and integrity. 

Thank you. 

Senator Simpson. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Paul W. Roberts 

I would like to thank Chairman Simpson and members of the Subcommittee for 
the opportunity to appear before you today concerning the INS Standardized Citi- 
zenslup Testing Program (the "Program") and the role Naturalization Assistance 
Services, Inc. (^AS") has played, in partnership with INS, in making the Program 
a success. 

NAS has over two years' field experience in the testing Program and although the 
Program has not been flawless, NAS is proud that it has tested almost 150,000 pro- 
spective Americans and enabled many to become part of the American dream. NAS 
is constantly striving to improve testing security and integrity and to that end NAS 
has increased security measures to further ensure that NAS's licensees strictly ad- 
here to all rules and regulations. As a matter of fact, an Executive session to analy- 
sis and strengthen NAS procediu-es in the area of compliance and security is occur- 
ring as we speak. NAS has a zero tolerance policy for cheating and the record will 
reflect that NAS has acted swiftly to revoke all hcensees discovered in engaging in 

Initially, I will provide a brief overview of the role of NAS and other entities in 
naturalization process to illustrate how the Program functions. 

Next, I will address issues concerning the Program raised by the Subcommittee, 
particularly relating to test integrity and security. Included in this section will be 
recommendations for strengthening the Program. 

Lastly, I wiU review the benefits and myths surrotmding the Program. 

After this brief statement, I will be pleased to answer questions concerning NAS's 
participation in the Program. 

I. standardized testing in the naturalization process 

To understand the Program, it is useful to review the process of becoming a U.S. 
citizen — naturahzation — and how it works. First of all, it is important to remember 
that only legal permanent residents of the United States — those with so called 
"green cards" — are ehgible to apply for U.S. citizenship. To reach this point, an ap- 
phcant must have been admitted as a lawful permanent resident and be a person 
of good moral character, and meet statutory residency requirements. 

The first step in the process is to file an application for naturalization with the 
INS. The application requests the information needed by the INS to determine 
whether the applicant is eligible for citizenship. There are many requirements to be- 
come a citizen; passing the standardized citizenship test is only one part of the com- 
plex process. 

The second step consists of a comprehensive interview with an INS examiner 
which cannot generally be waived. At the interview, the prospective citizen is ques- 
tioned on the information provided in the application and tested in English on the 
fiindamentals of U.S. history and government and ability to read and write English. 
As an alternative, an applicant may take a standardized citizenship test adminis- 
tered through a National Testing Entity, such as NAS, and then would not be re- 
tested on U.S. history and government by the INS examiner. However, the applicant 
must still demonstrate English language ability by answering questions in English 
concerning the application. Once again, the interview is conducted in English. 

In other words, the INS examiner tests on spoken English while the National 
Testing Entities test on history, government and written English. INS always has 
a double check on an apphcant's qualifications for citizenship. INS does far more 
than rubber stamp a test given by an entity such as NAS. 

The alternative citizenship testing program permits INS officers more time to con- 
duct in-depth interviews on the other substantive requirements to ensure persons 
of bad moral character and criminals are not granted citizenship. 


Finally, if the examiner approves the application, after a final review of qualifica- 
tions, the applicant will be scheduled for a natviralization ceremony, where citizen- 
ship is officially conferred. 


From the onset of NAS's participation in this Program, it was evident to us that 
the concept of a partnership between government and private industry would re- 
quire constant vigilance and cooperation between the two parties to ensure that the 
Program's objectives, and requirements were met to ensure the highest standards 
for admitting applicants to citizenship. In that hght, NAS has worked closely with 
INS to keep them informed of NAS's activities and operational methodologies with 
the goal of maintaining and increasing quality control. 

Examples of NAS's achievements in this area have included the following: 

Psirticipation in numerous conference call meetings between the Service and the 
other six nationally approved testing entities concerning voluntary modifications of 
Program delivery standards and quality control issues. 

Participation in a national meeting of the National Testing Entities and the Serv- 
ice at INS Headquarters, in which each of the National Testing Entities shared pro- 
prietary information concerning testing techniques, security procedures, and item 
development criteria. 

Maintain ongoing dialogue with designated INS liaison officials. 

NAS conducts National Conferences for all NAS licensees in which the latest 
standards and procedures are reviewed and implemented. A NAS National Con- 
ference for licenses will be conducted in November. It is mandatory that at least 
two representatives from a testing entity attend. 

Mr. Mike Williams, the former Chief of the United States Border Patrol, and Mr. 
Dale Cozart, former Chief of the San Diego Sector will direct all compliance and se- 
curity activities for NAS. This will ensure that NAS's licensees administer the 
standardized citizenship test in a manner that preserves examination security and 
integrity. In addition, NAS has employed additional security and compliance person- 
nel who will make random and unannounced visits to NAS licensees' test sites, in- 
cluding undercover investigations. 

NAS has increased screening and monitoring of its licensees and will continue to 
suspend and/or cancel any licensees who depart from NAS' standards of test integ- 


NAS has requested INS to raise the minimum pass percentage for the examina- 
tion from sixty percent (60 percent) to seventy percent (70 percent). NAS's discus- 
sions with members of the NAS Advisory Board revealed that the increased passing 
percentage would "raise the bar" for applicants and would enhance the Program by 
ensuring that applicants possessed sufficient knowledge of the topics addressed by 
the examination. 

NAS believes that the elimination of a Program standard which requires that ad- 
ministrators read test questions orally to applicants would enhance the test's ability 
to assess an applicant's English comprehension by requiring candidates to read and 
understand written test questions and apply their comprehension toward selecting 
the appropriate test answer. In addition, as a security measure, elimination of this 
Program standard would enable test centers to simultaneously distribute different 
series examinations to applicants, thereby significantly reducing the possibility of 
cheating by the applicants. For example, if proctors were not required to read the 
questions aloud during the test, each applicant could be given a different test draw- 
ing on the same bank of questions, thereby preventing apphcants from copying one 
another's answers. 

Require applicants to pass a spoken English proficiency test before being admitted 
to the standardized citizenship test. If a spoken English test was required, many 
of the public complaints about the program would be addressed. 

NAS plans to implement an exit identification process. Applicants will be required 
to display their green card and completed test booklet to test proctors prior to exit. 
This process will prevent eligible apphcants from paying an individual to take their 

NAS plans implementation of a fingerprint program for all testing applicants. 
Specifically, NAS plans to modify its test booklets to accommodate a thumb print 
for each applicant who participates in the Program. NAS believes that this measure 
will significantly reduce the possibility of one person illegally taking the test for an- 
other person. 



The Program has numerous benefits to the government and taxpayers. First, by 
re-allocating time normally spent conducting civics examinations, INS officers are 
able to concentrate on a more thorough review of the applicant's qualifications and 
eUgibihty as a potential United States citizen. This "freeing up" of time allows offi- 
cers to better screen citizenship applicants. 

Second, by utihzing the standardized citizenship examinations, INS officers' pro- 
ductivity is increased, thereby reducing the need for additional INS personnel. 

Third, this Program is not funded by tax dollars. 

Fourth, the expertise of the National Testing Entity in delivering standardized ex- 
aminations affords apphcants a more uniform less subjective, test of their pro- 



Perhaps the most popular myths siurounding the Program are that an applicant 
who passes a standardized citizenship test will: 

Automatically become a U.S. citizen; or 

Will be "guziranteed" U.S. citizenship. 

This clearly is not the case. The standardized citizenship test does not certify an 
appUcant's eUgibUity for citizenship, nor does it certify one's proficiency in English. 
As discussed earUer, after filing an application for natiu-alization, an applicant must 
appear for an interview with an INS examiner. At the interview the examiner ques- 
tions the appUcant concerning the application for naturalization to determine eligi- 
bility for citizenship. If the applicant has failed to fulfill any of the many require- 
ments for naturalization, the application will be denied. The naturalization inter- 
view is conducted in English, with some exceptions. 

Another myth is that taking a test with a National Testing Entity puts an appli- 
cant at the head of the citizenship queue. This is simply not true. All applicants 
are interviewed at INS in order of application filing, whether previously tested by 
an entity or at ENS. 

Yet another myth is that the Program is not administered with the highest level 
of test security and integrity. NAS's vigilance in this area has led to the investiga- 
tion and cancellation of licensees who have not met NAS's high standards for test 
administration and security. NAS has always worked in cooperation with the INS, 
including working directly with INS agents in the investigation and, when nec- 
essary, prosecution of persons and/or firms involved in alleged impropriety. NAS 
recognizes that these efforts require continual review to improve NAS's investigative 

Another myth is that the standardized citizenship test is primarily delivered by 
small, unreUable Ucensees. NAS includes among its licensees the following: 

CathoUc Charities 

American Red Cross 

United Farm Workers 

Dade County Florida PubUc Schools 

CoUier County Florida Public Schools 

Riverside Cedlfomia Public Schools 

New Haven Connecticut Adult Education Centers 

Solsmo County California Department of Health and Social Services 

San Luis ObispK) California Literacy Council 

Finally, all of NAS' licensees are subject to the same guidelines and procedures 
for maintaining examination security and integrity. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time and attention. I would be happy to an- 
swer the Subcommittee's questions. 

Senator Simpson. Mr. Krieger, nice to see you again, sir. 


Mr. Krieger. Thank you; nice to see you again, Senator. Mr. 
Chairman, Mr. Kennedy, ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to 
appear before you today to speak of the Marich Associates Author- 
ized Citizenship Testing Program and the citizenship services we 


Since October 5, 1994, the Marich Associates has been author- 
ized by INS to conduct standardized citizenship testing. We con- 
ducted our first citizenship test in mid-December 1994. In accord- 
ance wdth the program notice of June 28, 1991, in the Federal Reg- 
ister, which states, "The testing entity must ensure, if concurrently 
providing test preparation, that test standards are strictly fol- 
lowed." Some Marich citizenship tests also provide test preparatory 
classes. One-third of our sites do not provide other services in con- 
junction with naturalization. If you can correct the testimony, sir, 
we had omitted the words "do not." 

Marich currently has 44 citizenship sites that produce an aver- 
age of 24 tests a month. We have tested just over 17,316 people 
since we began, and 13,054 have passed our tests, for an average 
of approximately 75 percent. The Marich Program provides a high 
degree of test and program security. We have provided INS and the 
immigration subcommittees of both Houses copies of the Marich 
regulations and procedures which incorporate the entire scope of 
INS procedures and requirements concerning U.S. citizenship test- 

Marich beheves that both the INS and Marich, as a testing en- 
tity, have responsibilities to the American people for the provision 
of ethical, supervised, and fee-reasonable U.S. citizenship services 
that come under our aegis. We believe that when Marich arranges 
with a site for the rendering of services, the community and the 
alien do not differentiate between Marich and that site by viewing 
that only the test is from Marich and the other services are pro- 
vided by the site. 

In conjunction with this philosophy and the belief that we must 
ensure the ethical standards of U.S. citizenship programs, we have 
developed a process of direct on-site Marich supervision of all tests 
and test preparatory classes, as well as issuing strict guidelines on 
N-400 preparation supervised by an attorney. Further, we have es- 
tablished a strict, reasonable fee for services that cannot be altered 
by a site. 

About 20 percent of our applicants take our citizenship test pre- 
paratory classes. About 25 percent have their fingerprints and pho- 
tographs done by our sites, and about 10 percent have their N- 
400's prepared by our sites. None of our sites may provide these 
ancillary services outside of Marich, with the exception of a site 
that is a Board of Immigration Appeals-approved agency or an 
agency receiving a community development grant which is super- 
vised. Additionally, no site may provide ancillary services to an in- 
dividual who is not tested by the site. 

Listed below are some other important facts about Marich's serv- 
ices. Marich has local area site supervisors who, as independent 
contractors, work directly for Marich. They are present at every 
citizenship test and test preparatory class given by a site. Marich 
uses several different multiple choice tests at each test session so 
that individuals sitting next to each other do not have the same 
multiple choice test. Marich provides a citizenship test preparatory 
class that was designed in conjunction with a former professor of 
the University of Pennsylvania and a faculty member from Brevard 
Community College. 


Marich requires representatives from all sites attend a training 
program of 4.5 hours before they may begin operation. Marich per- 
mits preregistration for tests up to 14 days before the test. The 
standardized citizenship test consists of 20 multiple choice ques- 
tions and 2 dictated sentences. In order to pass the test, the notice 
of program specifies an applicant must answer at least 12 ques- 
tions correctly and write 1 sentence correctly. 

In addition, Marich requires that the portion of the test answer 
sheet that deals with personal information be correct and that the 
answer sheet is signed. Further, there can be only one handwriting 
on the answer sheet. Marich sites never receive the multiple choice 
questions or sentences for the citizenship tests. The citizenship 
tests are in the hands of our supervisors and not the sites. The su- 
pervisor brings the tests to the test session and leaves with them 
after the test. The supervisor selects the 2 sentences from a list of 
30 sentences that we provide our supervisors and change periodi- 
cally. No sentence may be given at consecutive test sites and no 
sentence may be used more than three times at any site. 

We are proud of the supervisors that work for us. They are 
degreed, ranging from a B.A., Ph.D., LL.B. Our supervisors also in- 
clude a former U.S. ambassador and coordinator for refugee affairs. 
We are equally proud of our citizenship sites and the services to 
the community they provide with Marich. They are a credit to the 
concept of U.S. (rovemment-private sector partnership and the di- 
verse composition of this Nation. They include community and jun- 
ior colleges; school systems; YMCA's; YMHA's; Vietnamese, Cam- 
bodian, Hmong, Lao, Hispanic, Indian, Jewish, Arabic, Afro-Amer- 
ican, Korean, PoUsh and Russian agencies. 

Just to conclude. Senator Simpson, we were greatly distressed 
about the recent media portrayal by "20/20" of citizenship testing. 
While we cannot comment about the validity of the statement 
made in the program that involved one site provider, and neither 
Marich nor the other entities were mentioned directly, we felt the 
program was blatantly one-sided and an unfair depiction of the 
program and, by implication, of Marich as well. 

Marich provided to "20/20" a listing of our sites, operational pro- 
cedures, and testing dates for January. We invited them to come 
without informing us of when they would be attending. We asked 
that they inform INS, not Marich, of the tests they would be at- 
tending; that they not photograph our tests, nor record the dictated 
sentences; and that they be sensitive to the individuals taking the 
tests. To the best of our knowledge, they have never attended one 
of our tests and they took pains to only televise the operations of 
one single site of one single entity. 

We have constantly provided all INS district offices with the 
dates of our tests and test preparatory classes and have invited 
them to come in without informing us. We have extended the same 
invitation to the staffs of both the Senate and the House Sub- 
committees on Immigration, and have instructed all of our super- 
visors to allow these people into the program as observers. 


I will save the rest for later, sir, but I would ask your permissipn 
to enter into the record these 6 letters that we have from rep- 
resentatives of our sites. 

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you, and they will be entered in the 

Mr. Krieger. Thank you, sir. 

[The letters referred to follow:! 


Suzanne Sareini City of Dearborn 


September 1, 1996 

Honorable Richard Krieger, Director 
Marick Gtizenship Services 
17104 Laburm Court 
R/fekvUU,MD 20SS5 

Dear Mr. Krieger, 

lam Mniting to you as the first Arab-American elected in the City of Dearborn and for 
almost a decade, the only Muslim to hold any elective office in the United States. 

My father came to this country at the age of eighteen in search of a better life for his 
family and to enjoy ^te very haste freedoms that our Constitutijtn affords us. My 
father, like millioHS of other immigrants played a major role in the development of this 
country and I am very proud of my Lebanese tthnie heritage. 

I wish to thank you for the citizgnship programs that Marick Associates is provitSng in 
Ihr Gty of Dearborn. I have seen the results first hand and lean utytvithout a doubt 
that this is one of the most cre^Stable immigration program that I have seen offered in 
a community center. 

I wish to commend you and your staff on the professionalism and integrity with witch 
your program is operated. It is a breath of fresh air. 

If I can be of any senice to you or your staff, please do not hesitate to call 

'/neilwoman Suzanne Sareini 

CITY HALL (313) M3.2«rM • FAX (313) 943-2842 

Home Town of Henry Ford 

41 -Sn'* Q7 _ o 


MOSHOLU MONTI FIORf COMMUNITY CtNTtR hat Mta chaalcs newman suilding • mso (X kals mi ■ browi, ny kusi 

(T1l)Nt-4000- TAX « (711) ni-uu 

Septembers, !<)% 

Honorable Richard Kneger 

P.O. Box 9130 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20898-Q1 '^O 

Dear Richard, 

I wanted to take this opportunity lo ihank you for your assistance in helping our agency lo serve 
immigrants In the past two years, the Marich-L'nired Stales Citizenship Program has endhled the 
Mosholu Montcfiorc Community Center to ser^c hundreds of ininiigrants who wnnt to become 
United States Citizeas 

Thanks to ycur professional training and supervision, we have been able to oiler Preparation 
Courses, Citizenship Tests, Finger Printing, Photo, and N400 assi.stance I have been impressed 
with the seriousness and profession-iIiBm of your staff and the high standards of youi program 

) must share with you that T always sleep better at night knowing that the Marich-United Siate.s 
Citizenship Program adheres to the full letter of the law and always follows all the rules set down 
by the Immigration and Natiirali7aiinn Service 

1 feel confident that as mure and luoii; iiimiigiaius reach out to us for assistance, wc arc offering 
the very best service possible 

Don Bluestone, MS W. 
Executive Director 







New York Metropolitan Martin Luther King, Jr. 
Center For Nonviolence 


Executive Dirraor 

Honorable Richard Krieger 

Vice Presidant 

MARICH atizenship Services 

17104 Laburnum Court 

Rockville, Maryland 20855 

Dear Mr. Krieger. 

Hie New York Metropolitan Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolence 
has had the pleasure of working with MARICH A.ssodatPs in the 
coordination of services that assist legal inxmigrants in becoming U.S. 
Citizens. These services have included courses in U.S. Iliilory aiid 
Government, administering the MARICH Standardized Citizenship Test, 
Fingerprinting & Photographing and assistance in filling out the N400 
Application for citizenship. 

Our association with MARICH began on April 4, 1995. Througliout this 
period of time, MARICH Associates has supervised our tests and courses. 
Their site supervisors have been thorough, punctual, pleasant and very 

Both Marlene and Richard Krieger, the principles at MARICH, provide 
excellent leadership in gtiiding their Citizenship Service Sites. They are 
always availdble or. If out of town, they quickly return our calls. Their 
knowledge of immigration laws, policy and pending legislation is very 
thorough. At no time have our questions gone imai\swered. They are always 
trying to improve the services and make sure that the highest level of 
honesty and integrity is maintained. 

Through their site supervisors, MARICH has built in safpgu^rds that prevent 
dishonesty, cheating or fraud. It is a pleasure to work with such an 
organi7.aiion and we look forvs-ard to a long and productive a:^bodation. 


576 EAST IC^TH STREET • BRONX. NFW YORK 10456 • (718 589-7858 • FAX. (718) 589-7973 



137-36 Jamaica Ave., Jamaica NY 11435 

Phone: (718) 297-5809 Fax: (718) 297-5815 
October 4, 1996 

Dear Mr. Krieger: 

The Citizenship Ser\ices sponsored by Marich Associates is benefiting our 
Community tremendously. 

This "one-stop" service is extended to resident in Queens and its bordering counties 
of Brooklyn and the Bronx. Seva Community services was instrumental in assisting 
approximately tAvo thousand legal immigrants to become Naturalized American. 

The Marich Program is verj time effective since it offers a "one-stop" ser>ice 
(Citizenship Preparatory Course, Test, Pictures and Fingerprinting and N-400 
Application forms). 

This Program is very disciplined and unique since it is the only Testing Program 
that sends a "SuperA isor" to its respective sites during a Test and Course. With the 
help of Marich Associates legal immigrants will be eligible for all the benefits to 
which other Americans are entitled to. 

Since mid-June Seva Community Ser\ ices has received a 200 percent increase in the 
number of citizenship inquiry calls every month. The number of Test applicants 
has also increased by 200 percent. 

Local community Radio and Television Programs has responded verv positively to 
this Citizenship Program. Churches of all different ethnicity have invited mc from 
time to time to do open-houses. For example on Sunday-September 8th I was 
invited to speak at a Hindu Church in Queens, NY (a congregation of 
approximately 200 people). On Monday 9th September approximately fifty people 
from that congregation called for additional information on "How to become a 
citizen", and additional forty (40) came to our premises to apply for their 
citizenship. Seva Community Ser\'ices under the direct supenision of Marich 
Associates is making every effort to educate the community on "WHY IT IS 

Page 1 


Coinniciils of Coniiiiunity Leaders : 

The Citizenship Program offered by Seva Community Ser>ices caters for the need of the 
entire community regardless of etiinic background. 

Dr. Dhanpaul Narine 
Communitj' Educator 
Teacher- Board of Ed. N.Y. 

"An excellent service that should be extended to other communities - (here are 
people who are not quite educated and as such when it comes to citizenship they 
need special guidance. This scr\ ice offers that guidance." 

Beverley South 

Bronx Church of God (Seven Day) 

"Citizenship Services at Seva Community Ser> ices in Queens, caters for the needs of 
the community." 

Caribbean Daylight 
Monday April 8th, 19% 

"Seva Comniunit}' Ser>ices - helping legal immigrants to become Naturalized 

Prime News - The Guyana 
Caribbean experience 
Friday - May 3rd, 1996 

Kamla Ramkissoon 
Site Manager 

Page 2 





Gateway to a Bhsht^ Future 

S»af d Of Oifectof s 

Mis Fra;'«W. 0'<««ff« 
Arre lui^rrjKf t -jt, 

Oiar.a/a Ocujiai 

h.d'<>' Bar/ 


Mr wnlfgnr^ K. f :oc.: 
»,v >.:■. ?M F.^.-ics J 

^^l Frark f fACiOa 
/>v^ >c*V' Rec, cTK' tjs 

3eu-iON 'At.ii-ic, 

Ocla&er7, 1996 

Honorable Richard Krieger, Dir. 
Marich AsscKiates 
17104 LaBumun Court 
Rockv(«e, MO 20855 

Dear Honorable Krieger; 

I wr8e to jfou to share some of the •jnreported outcomes. \Miich 
as an adrmrlstrator, I do not get ts report about on tho 
Naturallza^on Citizenship Program we offer. Very otten, as you 
k^a^M, matt of our reports relate to hard data and not wriat I caN 
the soft parts of the program. 

Since we began offering the Natu.'^lizaiion Citizenship Program in 
1 935, vt/K have aaaisCcd over 300 immigrams to t58come 
Naturalized Citizens. We have done this, ttianks to your 
certification of community Dasea organJzatiorsiike o;jfs as sites 
for immioranis to Begin the process of tjecoming Naturafized 
Citkens. Tnts certification has allowed our community residents, 
mostly wofXing dass immigrants wito because thfty hold two or 
sometimae three jobs, find ro time to attend the b^o days of 
traitidriS and one oay of te«ti/)g, as required, in addition, the 
opportunity of being in their familiar surroundings, coupled with 
tha coura« and ttn^t being offei-ed during evenings and weekends 
nas maaec it much more flexfcte for our comnrwnity residents to 
fmaHy have their dreams of tjecoming Americans come true. 

Sincerely yours, 

"b^nda Vega, CSW 
Dir., Agcicy Services 

Ca?^ K'fi\A S»rt:teri irrii ^vm-k. ViSi Si.tdso.t 5t . Dror>; jJV '0+.^/'?, Tel 718 589 2530 =dx 71 S-S-S-S-'itiii 

Cs've'Cornrr'jii:/ Colter 55 Eosc 'oarv:! St , wvw^iA |;y 10C29, Tei £12-2a9-2/Cfl 

Carsi Senio' Ccrtc.- 307 Eiict r,6:h it . N<2v, yor*, mV iXA-;', 7«. J \'^.■^m-^^'>'> 

Fvuticted fcy M'j Chores i I. XidAr ond Mrc. W Illam^C 0'K8s(t« In 1 va4 

.Vn*v Pm^mrm I'aiued unJa tu/Coc; n7[*7 ffjc Ni^y Ki-it C't; D-:p<yrTr.err for itc.^S"^ 



605 Ocean Parkway * Brooklyn, NY 11218 * « (718) 854^)006 * Fax: (718) 871-6955 

October 7, 1DS6 

Honorable Richard Krieger 
MARICK Citizenship Services 
17104 Laburn'om Court 
Rockvilie, KD 20055 

Dear Kr. Krieger, 

Ws. at Chabad Lubavitch cf Kensington, as a pare of the 

Int'Si.i' LiubAvii^ch Moveirisnt,, ave serving and providing social 
and spiritual needs to cur coirnranity. Specially the r.ev; Russicin- 
Jev.'ish iirir.igrants, living in the "zens of thousands in our area. 
Afhpr dpra(i(i>=! nf ^nffp-mg htsh-inn th(» iron rur'.ai-i?^ linder thp 
communist regime, they came here in this free country with a real 
hope tor -a toright tuzure 3n<5 freedom. 

The possibility you gave us to provide services and 
assistar.ce in becoming US Citiz-sns for this immigrante are most 
irr^ortant. For the year and a half since v;e start the program of 
administering che warich standardized citizenship Tests, 
preparatory classes in US Histoiy and Gcvernirient, assistance in 
filling cut N-400 Fonr.s and Fingerprinting, thousands of the 
inirriigrants want thru our Center and ejipressed thanks and 
appreciation to Marich Associates. 

We v.'ould like to wish you, Mr. and Mrs. Krieger much success 
in all your work, especially in your great efforts to help the 
iiTcnigrants around the country' . 

Wishing you a Healthy and Sweet New Year, 

Sincerely yours, 

-^^^:^^€ r. ^-^. 

F3bbi Moshe C. Levin 
Executive Director 


Senator SiMPSON. Well, I appreciate your remarks here. For Mr. 
Roberts, we all know of the controversy concerning the fraud by 
some testers; the suspension of operations in November 1995; a 
stipulation agreement under the threat of litigation from your 
counsel, due in part to very lengthy and costly litigation which 
could arise, and millions at stake. 

So what is your side of the story? You agree there have been 
problems. Why did they happen? Do they happen because your li- 
censees are profit organizations? It seems to me one serious prob- 
lem is if you license your activities to "nonprofits" — and you name 
some. Catholic Charities, the Red Cross. I don't think that gives 
quite a tremor to those of us in Congress as to the licensing of prof- 
it agencies who have a bottom line, which is success, which is 
showing figures that they are doing their job and doing it magnifi- 
cently, and they always will. So I think that is going to be a prob- 

But how did it all happen? How do you intend to prevent such 
problems in the future? What is INS doing now to oversee your op- 
erations before and after, and what experiences and training have 
you yourself personally had in the field of testing in these areas, 
because obviously this is going to receive a great deal of attention 
and this is your opportunity to explain what has happened? 

Mr. Roberts. We certainly have redoubled our efforts in the 
monitoring. As was stated by the first panel, there are some new 
rules that came out October 1 that we are glad to see that will cer- 
tainly enhance the program. The first suspension in November 
1995 was based primarily on a news report out of St. Paul. We 
never had the opportunity at any point to present our side of that 
particular news piece, which we would have liked to have done at 
the time. 

We hired Mr. Mike Williams and Dale Cozart to help us with our 
monitoring, two nationally recognized people that have come on 
board to once again redouble our efforts. I reiterate that we have 
zero tolerance for cheating and when we find cheating or any kind 
of inappropriate activity, we act swiftly to remove that licensee 
from testing. Over 65 percent of our licensees are nonprofits. We 
do have attorneys that test for us and we do have some forprofit 
groups that are community-based organizations. They have now got 
the IRS nonprofit status. So the large majority of our tests and li- 
censees are from the nonprofit side. 

Senator SiMPSON. You have no profit agencies as licensees, is 
that correct? 

Mr. Krieger. We have one, sir. 

Senator Simpson. One? 

Mr. Krieger. Right. 

Senator Simpson. Why? 

Mr. Krieger. Well, that was an individual that we had known 
for a very, very long time and he was operating at a school system 
and it worked well for us. When we originally started, we had four 
forprofit agencies. We have closed all four of those, and we have 

Senator SiMPSON. Why? 

Mr. Krieger. Improprieties, sir; one of them for price-gouging, 
one of them for attempting to commit fraud. And we are able to do 


this. Having our supervisors at every site and every test, we know 
exactly what is going on. One of the others was closed because he 
tried to influence one of the monitors, and the fourth one was 
closed for not adhering to contract regulations which specify that 
if we don't have enough preregistration to hold the test, we can't 
hold that test. The test is then moved over to another time. 

So those were the four that we closed for that reason, but we 
have also closed, sir, three members of the New York Immigration 
Coalition; you know, nonprofit agencies. We closed four nonprofits, 
one of them for price-gouging, one of them for trying to crowd too 
many people into a test, another for disruptive activities during the 
commission of a test. 

As Paul said, we were very pleased to see the regulations and re- 
quirements — rather, the requirements and procedures that INS 
came out with on the 10th of September. As a point of record, we 
had been implementing those at a stricter level well before that 
and have reported that to the INS and to your office, with copies 
of our regulations and requirements, sir. 

Senator Simpson. I think there has been a lot more vigor since 
we announced we would have these hearings some many weeks ago 
in this area, and I think from reading of all of the material here, 
we must begin to pay attention to the profit licensees, the forprofit 
licensees. But, also, the nonprofit organizations may have an ideo- 
logical motive or zeal that may be just as strong as the financial 
aspects of the forprofit organizations. That is my experience, hum- 
ble as it may be. 

How many licensees do you have, Mr. Roberts? How many in- 
spectors will you assign to monitor these licensees? 

Mr. Roberts. We currently have 170 licensees. We have 5 re- 
gional representatives, approximately 10 undercover people that 
speak native languages, and currently Mr. Cozart and Mr. Wil- 
liams are trying to recruit retired Border Patrol officers to help us 
with the on-site unannounced inspections on tests. 

Senator Simpson. Do you encourage unannounced site inspec- 

Mr. Roberts. That is the only way we inspect sites, is unan- 

Senator Simpson. Do you encourage others to do that, like those 
of us who have oversight and the INS? 

Mr. Roberts. Absolutely. 

Senator Simpson. At any time? 

Mr. Roberts. Any time. 

Senator Simpson. Just finally, you mentioned Dale Cozart and 
Mike Williams. I have come personally to know them both, very 
able people, former Border Patrol men. You have hired Skip 
Tollifson a weekend after he left the INS. He was off the pajrroU 
on Friday and you picked him up on Monday. How many other 
former INS officers have you hired and how long after retirement 
has that taken place? 

Mr. Roberts. Those are the only INS officers that we have hired. 

Senator Simpson. And how long did it take to — I mean, Mr. 
TolUfson was a weekend and he was involved in monitoring your 
organization as a member of the INS. 


Mr. Roberts. He worked for INS. I don't think his primary re- 
sponsibiHties were monitoring. 

Senator Simpson. It was one of them, though, was it not? 

Mr. Roberts. It could have been, yes. 

Senator Simpson. Thank you. 

Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. As I understand, historically about 80 percent 
of the testing has gone on in INS and about 20 outside. Is that 
your understanding? 

Mr. Roberts. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. It has been going on for some period of time, 
and I also understand that it is being reviewed within INS about 
whether it ought to be enhanced or reduced. We didn't get into that 
this morning and some time down the road maybe we will, but at 
least that is being reviewed. But the idea is that this contracting 
out has been going on over some period of time, as I understand 
it. I don't know whether the more recent problems that you com- 
mented on — whether those have been similar kinds of problems in 
the past, but they certainly have to be addressed and dealt with. 

I think it is important for the Americans who are watching this 
to understand that even if they go on through, you have these very 
unfortunate incidents where you have trimming or cheating on 
these various programs. Even after they go through the test, the 
individuals still have to go through an INS system and clearance, 
isn't that right? 

Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. They have to go through the interviews and 
other provisions. It isn't just the fact that you give them a stamp 
of approval, or any of these alleged sites give them the stamp of 
approval and they automatically get their citizenship. 

Mr. Krieger. No; Senator, they must file an N-400 form, finger- 
print form, pictures, and supportive documents with the INS. If 
they take the test with us and pass it, and it is the English exam- 
ination, they still must be interviewed by an examiner to show that 
they can speak and understand ordinary English. 

If I can just make one correction, sir, we are not contractors. We 
are authorized by the INS. We receive no funds from INS whatso- 
ever to do this. The only funds that we receive and we divide with 
our sites are from the fees paid by the aliens to take the test or 
to take any other services. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I think these issues have been raised 
and they are enormously troublesome. You are going to have an op- 
portunity to address them and we will obviously give you a chance 
for that kind of response. You are certainly entitled to it, but obvi- 
ously it creates an enormously adverse feeling among Americans; 
I am sure by those individuals who want to become citizens, too. 
I mean, most of them are out there pla3dng by the rules, tr3dng to 
do their work, trying to study, trying to qualify on this, and they 
find others are gimmicking the game on this thing. It is wrong 
from every point of view. 

So we will have a chance to review this in greater detail down 
the road, but I appreciate your being here today. 

Senator Simpson. Thank you very much, both of you. Thank you 
very much, Mr. Roberts and Mr. Krieger, 


We will go now to the third panel, Michael J. Feuer, Director of 
the Board of Testing and Assessment of the National Academy of 
Sciences, and Bert Green, professor of psychology at Johns Hopkins 
University. We welcome you both to the panel and will appreciate 
very much having your views in the order on the witness list. 

Mr. Feuer. 



Mr. Feuer. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here to testify on issues related 
to testing of immigrants seeking naturalization. 

I am the Director of the Board on Testing and Assessment of the 
National Academy of Sciences and an adjunct professor of public 
policy at Georgetown University, but I testify today as a private 
citizen with some expertise on testing and my remarks do not rep- 
resent the opinions or positions of either the academy or George- 
town University. 

Section 312 of the Immigration Act codifies in law a notion that 
is, at least on its surface, logical and understandable. New Ameri- 
cans should be able to demonstrate an understanding of the Eng- 
lish language, including an ability to read, write and speak words 
in ordinary usage. Who would argue, indeed, that any American, 
naturalized or not, doesn't need a basic command of English? 

But in making this a condition for naturalization, the act 
legitimates the use of "reasonable tests of literacy," as screening 
devices, and provides legal backing to the principle that perform- 
ance on a test can open or close the gate to naturalization. Given 
the significance of the consequences associated with passing or fail- 
ing such a test, the granting or den3dng of American citizenship — 
surely, one of the most cherished credentials on Earth — it is par- 
ticularly important to assure that the tests, if they are used for this 
purpose, meet the highest professional and ethical standards in 
their design, validation, administration, and interpretation. 

I am going to summarize my testimony briefly. I have the writ- 
ten version to be submitted for the record and I would like to just 
focus on three main points. First, some general principles of sound 
testing practices; second, some specific problems associated with 
literacy testing; and, third, some caution flags about section 312 in 
the light of these considerations. 

On the general question of testing, to try to summarize that in 
a minute would undoubtedly blaspheme 100 years' worth of very 
important scientific and technological research in the field, but I 
will give it a shot. Testing is a tool of information. It provides esti- 
mates of human performance. Good tests are developed in a 
lengthy, time-consuming, technologically sophisticated and costly 
process, from design to item development to pilot testing, valida- 
tion, administration, scoring, standard-setting, and ultimately the 
drawing of fair and valid inferences based on test results. 


Even under the best of circumstances, though, test results come 
with some error. Some people who pass should have failed, some 
who fail should have passed. In light of the fact that tests can 
produce estimates with that kind of error, it is all the more impor- 
tant that the purpose of the testing be well-defined and well under- 
stood and the tests not be used probably ever as the sole basis for 
making important decisions about individuals or groups or institu- 

The second point is literacy testing, it raises some particularly 
complicated questions. Intuitively, we may all feel that knowing 
basic English usage is a worthy objective. Translating that concept 
into criteria that would inform the development of tests and test 
items and inferences from those tests is another matter. We have 
many different kinds of literacy tests in use currently for many dif- 
ferent purposes. Some are oriented toward early diagnosis of read- 
ing difficulties in young children and can be useful in developing 
instructional strategies. Others are meant to provide broader infor- 
mation on the literacy of the whole population or of groups within 
the population, such as the National Adult Literacy Survey and 
other such instruments. 

Others yet define literacy with respect to specific academic or 
work-related competencies, such as verbal skill required for liberal 
arts studies, let us say, or quantitative skill required, for example, 
to go into accounting. Many colleges and universities use estab- 
lished tests of English that are designed for students whose native 
language is not English, and they use as one of the many criteria 
to determine qualification for admission; emphasize the word 

In a word, then, the definition of literacy is complicated. It is 
often controversial, and the assessment becomes even more com- 
plicated and complex because of the need to determine the specific 
purposes, the criteria, the sample population issues, standards, the 
meaningfulness of scores, the enforcement of sound and ethical 
principles of test use. 

About section 312, it certainly does open the door for what people 
in the testing world would refer to as very high-stakes testing, and 
there are several important and related values that I think need 
to be safeguarded in the application of this statute. Let me suggest 
three directions, and this can be the basis perhaps for some further 
discussion later. 

Point No. 1 is that we need to define the purpose very clearly. 
Is the testing indeed intended to screen out and deny citizenship 
to individuals who meet other criteria, but fail to demonstrate basic 
English language proficiency? If so, then the test is indeed in- 
tended for use in very high-stakes decisions, and the procedures for 
content specification, pilot testing, validation, scoring, and cut-score 
determination need to meet th^ most exacting standards. 

It would be ironic indeed if procedures used to admit newcomers 
to the American way of life, which stands for fairness and justice, 
were themselves unfair or unjust. It was mentioned earUer that 
perhaps we need some kind of national, broad dialog, a consensus 
process about exactly what kinds of standards of proficiency we 
have in mind. 


Two other points. I see the red hght is on, so I will cut them 
down to one sentence each. Conduct extensive experimentation 
with various tests to make sure that they actually serve the pur- 
poses for which they are intended. And point No. 3, make sure that 
we regulate this entire process effectively so that the integrity of 
naturalization, as well as the integrity of testing, can be safe- 

Senator SiMPSON. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Feuer follows:! 

Prepared Statement of Michael T. Feuer, Ph.D. 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Mi- 
chael Feuer. I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify on issues related to 
testing of immigrants seeking naturalization as American citizens. I am cvirrently 
the Director of the Board on Testing and Assessment of the National Academy of 
Sciences, and adjunct professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University. I have 
been involved in research and analysis on matters of testing and public policy for 
over a decade. Prior to joining the Academy I was a senior analyst and project direc- 
tor at the Office of Technology Assessment, where I specialized in education, psycho- 
logical testing, and human resources policy. 

My testimony today does not necessarily represent the opinions or positions of the 
Academy, the National Research Council, or the Board. 

Section 312 of the Inunigration Act codifies in law a notion that is, on its surface, 
logical and understandable: new Americans should be able to demonstrate "an un- 
derstanding of the EngUsh language, including an ability to read, write, and speak 
words in ordinary usage ***.*' Indeed, who would argue that any American — natu- 
ralized or not— does not need a basic command of English? In making this a condi- 
tion for naturalization, however, the Act legitimates the use of "reasonable test[s] 
of * * * literacy" as screening devices, and provides legal backing to the principle 
that performance on a test can open or close the gate to naturalization. Given the 
significance of the consequences associated with passing or failing such tests — the 
granting or denying of American citizenship, surely one of the most cherished cre- 
dentials on earth — it is particularly important to assure that the tests meet the 
highest professional and ethical standards in their design, validation, administra- 
tion, and interpretation. 

In my testimony I will focus on the following issues: 

General principles for sound testing practice; 
Specific issues related to tests of English literacy; and 
Implications for the uses of tests in naturalization proceedings. 


Tests are tools of information. They provide estimates of knowledge or behavior 
based on samples, and scores are therefore always subject to error. 

The first step in the process of making a test, therefore, is to determine the pur- 
poses to which the test information will be put. Who will use the data? What deci- 
sions will rest on the scores? This is a seemingly simple and straightforward prin- 
ciple — that definition of purpose should precede and inform design and application — 
but it is often overlooked by test makers, test users, and policy makers who rely 
on test data. In the US we do a great deal of testing, for many different purposes. 
For example, we use tests to: 

Diagnose various types of learning processes in students, and give teachers, par- 
ents, and learners useful information to guide practice; 

Check annual progress (achievement) of individual students or groups of students 
in mastering subject matter; 

Evaluate the condition of education in the nation as a whole, using such instru- 
ments as the National Assessment of Educational Progress; 

Provide information to employers about the expected performance capabiUties of 
job apphcants; 

Select new recruits into various training and specialty programs in the armed 

Provide information to college admissions officers about the expected academic 
performance of student applicants; 

Determine eligibility for special programs in education and training institutions 
(e.g., special education, gifted and talented, firm-sponsored training, etc.); and 


Assess the literacy — verbal, numeric, scientific, historical — of the population at 
large or of specific groups within the population. 

The importance of understanding the purpose of testing as a prerequisite to design 
and administration cannot be overemphasized. 

The next step is to develop items — short answer questions, essays, performance 
tasks — that provide a reasonable measure of the broader domain of interest. For ex- 
ample, if we are interested in testing an individual's mastery of the high school 
science curriculum in a particular school district, we might design a test that in- 
cludes different kinds of items (short answer questions to establish basic factual 
knowledge, longer and performance-based items to establish scientific reasoning 
processes), which together give a reliable measure of the test- taker's competence in 
the defined subject area. Defining the subject area and Unking test items to content 
are ingredients in what testing professionals call "vaUdity," i.e., the extent to which 
a test measiires what it is supposed to measure. Obviously, a test that is intended 
to measure the skills necessary to be a good science writer would be quite difierent 
from a test intended to measure an individual's skill in performing chemical experi- 
ments in the laboratory — even though they both, ostensibly, would measure some- 
thing about science. 

Writing test items that appear to cover the intended domain is just the beginning 
of a crucial and often time-consuming process of "test validation," which refers to 
the gathering of empirical evidence linking test performance to the broader domain 
that the test is intended to estimate. Returning to the science example, this stage 
in the design process involves careful scrutiny of test items by content experts, so 
that, for example, questions about the molecular structure of cells are drawn fi"om — 
and provide an indicator of — accepted scientific knowledge; administering the test 
items to samples of students to explore empirically the ways in which items are in- 
terpreted by potential test-takers; checking the relationship of their scores to other 
independent sources of data about their science competency; comparing the accuracy 
of different types of items; and, overall, developing a sound basis for using the test 
beyond the experimental sample and as a basis for inferences about students' mas- 
tery of the defined material. These are not simple or trivial exercises, and they re- 
quire a deUcate blending of content expertise, psychological theory, statistical analy- 
sis, and editorial finesse. 

The next question becomes how to interpret the scores. Suppose we have a science 
test with items that are well-suited to estimating mastery of a broader curriculum. 
What does a score of 75 mean? Is 80 good enough? Obviously, a score is meaningless 
unless it is understood to relate to something: if my body temperature is 103, that 
is meaningful only because I know that average human body temperature is around 
98. In educational and psychological testing, too, scores cannot be understood in a 
vacuum. Test developers must therefore develop norms, or standards against which 
to understand scores obtained by individual test takers. Some norms are established 
by giving a test to a sample population that is representative of the population that 
will later be given the real test; then, individuals who are tested can interpret their 
scores in relation to the distribution of scores obtained in the representative popu- 
lation. Although these so-called "norm-referenced tests" are sometimes criticized as 
reinforcing competitive ranking and sorting, they are still widely used in many con- 
texts; perhaps the most familiar is the nationally-normed educational achievement 
test, results of which are presented to enable individual students to judge their per- 
formance relative to a large nationally-representative sample of students in their 
age and grade group. Alternatively, a test can be normed against a defined body 
of knowledge, so that the score is not just a ranking of individuals compared to one 
another but an estimate of one's knowledge relative to the ideal or total knowledge 
one might theoretically have in a given subject. For such a test, a score of 75 sug- 
gests something about how much of the curriculum the test taker has mastered. 

Without belaboring the details, suffice to say that norming is, itself, an essential 
part of the test design process, and an undertaking of substantial statistical com- 
plexity that is both time-consuming and costly when done properly. Based on 
norming studies and the precise definition of how test scores are indicators of future 
performance, an important next step for tests used in screening, selection, and some 
system-monitoring contexts is the determination of cutoff scores. This step essen- 
tially involves asking the question: how good is good enough? Standard-setting and 
the application of cutoff scores is, itself, a major subtopic in test theory and practice. 
It is crucial to remember that test scores are estimates, and that no matter where 
one puts the cutoff, some individuals who should have passed will fail and others 
who should have failed will pass. 

Assuming that test content and norms have been obtained, the next step is to as- 
sure proper administration. To assure fairness and test vaUdity, it is obviously im- 


portant that items remain secure. In addition, standardized tests are called that in 
part because they are administered under vmiform conditions for all test-takers. (A 
related issue is establishing acceptable conditions for variations from uniform ad- 
ministration, in order to accommodate reUgious observance, physical disability, or 
other extenuating circumstances. The design of testing accommodations is, in many 
ways, nearly as complicated as the design of tests.) 

The final step in sound test practice is scoring and score-reporting. With the ad- 
vent of computer technology, standardized multiple-choice tests became increasingly 
economical to score; in addition, there is minimal error in scoring these tj^jes of 
tests. However, drawing inferences from scores is another matter, one that if not 
handled with attention to the subtleties (and fragilities) of test design, norms, and 
standards can lead to particularly serious mischief. Unfortunately, the history of 
testing in the US is a mixed record of extraordinary progress in test design and use 
and of egregious errors in the classification of individuals, groups of individuals, and 


In the wording of the Immigration Act, naturalization is to be dependent on an 
applicant's demonstrated abihty to "read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage 
in the English language." Superficially, at least, this wording suggests that the first 
condition for sound test practice — specifying content to be measured — has been sat- 
isfied. But has it? What exactly is meant by "ordinary usage?" And how shall we 
judge abiUty to read, write, and speak "ordinarily?" Indeed, though the framers of 
the law may have had a strong intuitive understanding of their expectations of new 
Americans, the law itself does not provide the kind of specificity that good test-mak- 
ers would need to design appropriate instruments. 

To understand why this is a more complicated issue than might meet the eye, con- 
sider the issue of literacy testing in the US. What is meant by literacy? Is it func- 
tional literacy, i.e., the cognitive skills without which people cannot function well 
enough to hold a job? Is it numerical Uteracy at a level reqviired for college-level 
calculus, emplo3Tnent in a fast-food outlet, or admission to an advanced program in 
accounting? Is it verbal literacy at a level required to read labels on grocery prod- 
ucts, write a letter to a member of Congress, or edit an encyclopedia of psychological 
measurement. What levels are really required? 

There are perhaps as many definitions of literary — and levels of literacy pro- 
ficiency — as there are literate adults. The variety is reflected in the diversity of pro- 
grams offered by schools, libraries, community organizations, churches, and govern- 
ment agencies. Among the many literacy programs are "Time to Read," a national 
volunteer program that emphasizes one-on-one and group interactions with assess- 
ments that are intended to provide close interactions between tutors and learners; 
reading programs in the Federal Prison System, which are more standardized-test 
oriented; the City University of New York Adult Literacy Program, which specifies 
that standardized tests should be only one component of assessment; and Com- 
prehensive Adult Student Assessment System, used in all California programs that 
receive federal Adult Basic Education fiinds, which emphasizes literacy as skills 
needed for specific competencies. 

Assessing literacy, therefore, is not trivial; it is simply not enough to say that lit- 
eracy tests should assess an applicant's ability to read or write "simple words and 
phrases * * *." without specifying more about the context in which appUcants are 
expected to use those words and phrases in their lives. To illustrate this point, it 
may be worth considering one of the more established and widely-used tests, the 
Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). The TOEFL is used by many col- 
leges and universities in their screening and selection of foreign students for admis- 
sion to undergraduate and graduate programs. As part of the design and validation 
process for TOEFL, scores are correlated with subsequent performance in various 
academic programs; thus, performance on the test is a signal of a specific definition 
of literacy that pertains to future academic work. In mentioning this example, I am 
not endorsing the TOEFL, but rather drawing attention to the importance of context 
in defining literacy and designing and validating tests. 


How might the principles of sound testing practice, and specific issues related to 
testing literacy, be applied to the legal mandate found in Section 312? 

1. Define the purpose more clearly 

Is the testing intended to screen out and deny citizenship to individuals who meet 
other criteria but fail to demonstrate basic EngUsh language abiUty? If so, then the 


test is intended for use in reaching extremely "highest-stakes" decisions, and the 
procedures for content specification, pilot-testing, validation, scoring, and cutoff 
score determination need to meet the most exacting standards. It would be ironic, 
indeed, if procedures used to admit newcomers to the American way of life, which 
stands for fairness and justice, were themselves unfair or unjust! 

Alternatively, if the test is intended as a basis for diagnosing English language 
deficits and recommending programs of remediation, its design and validation would 
necessarily be different. I mention this possibility in the hope that Congress will 
consider the value in helping new Americans find their way to improving much- 
needed literacy skills, rather than simply denying citizenship status to those who 
do not yet possess those skills. 

2. Conduct extensive experimentation with various tests 

If the intent is to use tests as gatekeepers to citizenship status, then they need 
to be rigorously evaluated with respect to the relationship between test scores and 
some other criterion such as subsequent functioning at work or school. In a word, 
tests approved for use in such a high-stakes context must undergo rigorous valida- 
tion, lest potentially "literate" citizens be mistakenly denied entry or potentially "il- 
literate" ones be admitted. (It is important to emphasize that both types of 
misclassification error can occur even with tests that have been through extensive 
validation; it would be useful to investigate the potential losses to American society 
of both types of error, and incorporate that information in the broader validation 

3. Regulate test use carefully 

There are at least two important and related values to be safeguarded in the ap- 
plication of Section 312: one concerns the integrity of the naturalization process, and 
the other concerns the integrity of testing. Given the complexities associated with 
defining concepts such as literacy, the enormous empirical work that would be re- 
quired to demonstrate validity of different types of literacy tests for new Americans, 
and the possibility of error in classification that can have dramatic individual and 
social consequences, it is not entirely clear that tests should be used at all in the 
naturalization process. If they are used, they need to be checked regularly against 
validity evidence, and they need to be updated periodically to account for shifting 
requirements of work, school, or other activities in which new Americans are ex- 
pected to participate. Unless these conditions are met, it is likely that massive num- 
bers of individusds will "pass" even if their literacy skills are questionable, or that 
massive numbers will "fail" even though they are highly likely to become literate 
and fiinction effectively as Americans. In the first scenario, the credibility of testing 
is compromised; in the second scenario, the credibility of our citizenship process is 
compromised. Both outcomes should be avoided. 

Senator Simpson. Mr. Green, please. 


Mr. Green. I am a professor of psychology at Johns Hopkins 
University and my specialty is the technical aspects of the design 
and evaluation of educational and psychological tests. I have been 
a technical adviser for other departments of the Government. 

My discussion assumes that new testing instruments are going 
to be devised for assessing the ability of candidates for naturalized 
citizenship to use the English language, as well as their knowledge 
of civics. The comments also would apply to the evaluation of exist- 
ing tests. 

Tests should conform to the standards for educational and psy- 
chological testing developed by the American Psychological Associa- 
tion, the American Educational Research Association, and the Na- 
tional Council on Measurement in Education. They have been re- 
vised often and are usually recognized by most testing organiza- 
tions. If I am representing anybody, I suppose it is those standards. 

It is most important that the testing be objective and standard- 
ized, which simply means that every candidate should be treated 
exactly the same. Everyone deserves the same fair chance to sue- 


ceed. It is not always easy to determine what is fair, but equal 
treatment would seem to be fundamental. 

In developing a standardized test, the first task is to specify its 
content. What is to be tested? In this case, the content according 
to the law is reading and writing English, as well as speaking and 
understanding spoken English. In addition, some knowledge of U.S. 
history and Government is required. For purposes of test develop- 
ment, the content must be specified in much more detail. Expei-ts 
in language testing and teaching should be consulted to assist in 
preparing detail specifications which would then become a sort of 
blueprint for the test. For example, ability to read what? Presum- 
ably, signs, newspapers, instructions for using equipment, but not 
novels. A committee of experts, and perhaps laypersons and 
Congresspersons as well, should come to agreement about the par- 
ticular nature of the content to be included. 

Second, what tests should be prepared? Presumably, history and 
government can be combined in one test, but should the four as- 
pects of English usage be assessed by four separate tests or can 
several aspects be combined into one test? If several tests are to 
be used, then must the candidate pass each aspect or can excel- 
lence in reading and writing make up for inadequate oral perform- 

What test medium should be used? Today, many new tests, as 
well as many old tests, are being given by computer. The paper- 
and-pencil test is generally being supplanted. Computer-based tests 
have the advantage of standardization, efficiency and security. 
Also, where appropriate, individuals can work at their own pace, 
so issues of test speediness are minimized. 

In this instance, the test of history and government can certainly 
be given by computer. Reading could also be tested by computer. 
Writing may well require a written test. Oral language perform- 
ance may require individual testing, although the use of audio 
tapes or the audio capabilities of computers is feasible. The com- 
puter is probably not up to evaluating spoken responses, but cer- 
tainly it could record such answers for later evaluation b^' a trained 

Well, given content specifications and a choice of medium of ad- 
ministration, then the test developer can readily develop a large 
number of test questions, which we call items. A large number of 
items is needed because some will turn out not to be very good. All 
items should always be pretested to check that they are working 
in the way they are supposed to. Statistical analysis of the results 
of pretests can determine which items must be weeded out. A few 
will turn out to be too easy or too hard or misleading. 

Serious problems arise when testing persons for whom English 
is not the first language. Lots of misunderstandings are possible in 
those situations. It would be necessary to pretest the items with 
persons having a variety of language backgrounds. A large number 
of items is needed for a second reason which we have been hearing 
about already today. If a paper-and-pencil test is used, there has 
to be several versions for purposes of security and fairness. 

In the computer version, a large bank of items should be avail- 
able for the computer to draw upon. The best plan would be to use 
the computerized mastery test which is designed to make accurate 


pass/fail decisions, but not to distinguish between those who are 
excellent from those who are only satisfactory. Nor do mastery 
tests try to tell you how badly someone has failed. They focus on 
the place where the decision has to be made. In such tests, the test 
can proceed until a candidate clearly passes or clearly fails. This 
may occur swiftly, within 10 or 12 items, or it might proceed for 
many more items. These procedures are currently in use and would 
seem to me very easily adapted to the current situation. 

A third reason for developing many forms of the test is that one 
or two forms can be disclosed and can be given to prospective can- 
didates so that they will be familiar with what they would be ex- 
pected to do on the test, also a common practice these days. The 
operational test versions, of course, should be kept secure and not 

The process of making sure that equivalent versions of the test 
are, in fact, equivalent is called equating. It is highly statistical, 
but it is a commonplace procedure. The Armed Services Vocational 
Aptitude Battery, for an example, used for initial selection of can- 
didates for military service tjqjically uses six equivalent versions at 
a time and then replaces those versions with new versions every 
few years. Today, that test is being given by computer and uses 
two or more large banks of test items. Equating procedures guaran- 
tees that all candidates are treated fairly even though they don't 
take precisely the same test. 

Well, once the tests have been developed, they should be checked 
for reliability to make sure that if someone takes the test twice, 
they should get about the same score or have the same decision 
made about them. Validity is also an important issue that we could 
discuss and I will discuss more in the written version. 

Finally, setting passing scores is not easy. How good is good 
enough? Sajang 60 percent or 70 percent ought to pass doesn't 
mean anything when you come right down to it because 60 percent 
or 70 percent of what, easy items or hard items? There are elabo- 
rate procedures in place now for setting such standards. It involves 
expert judgment and it is always open to discussion, but it can be 
dealt with. 

Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Bert F. Green, Jr. 

My name is Bert F. Green, Jr. I am a professor of psychology at the Johns Hop- 
kins University, Baltimore MD. My specialty is the technical aspects of the design 
and evaluation of psychological testing and assessment. I have been an advisor on 
testing matters for the U.S. Department of Defense, the Department of Labor, and 
the Department of Education's National Assessment of Educational Progress. 

This discussion assumes that new testing instruments will be designed for assess- 
ing the use. The test should conform to the Standards for Educational and Psycho- 
logical Testing developed by the American Psychological Association, the American 
Educational Research Association, and the National Council on Measvu-ement in 
Education. It is important that the testing be standardized, which means simply 
that every candidate should be treated the same. Everyone deserves the same fair 
chance to succeed. It is not always easy to determine what is fair, but equal treat- 
ment would seem to be fundamental. 

The first task in developing a standardized test is to specify its content. What is 
to be tested? In this case, the content includes reading and writing English, as well 
as speaking and understanding spoken English. In addition, some knowledge of 
United States history and government is required. For purposes of test development, 
the content must be specSied in much more detail. Experts in language teaching 


and testing may be useful in preparing the detailed specifications, which are a sort 
of blueprint for the test. For example, ability to read what? Presumably signs, news- 
papers, instructions for using equipment, etc., but not novels. 

Second, what tests should be prepared? Presumably history and government can 
be combined in one test, but shoula the four aspects of English usage be assessed 
by four separate tests, or can several aspects be combined in one test. If several 
tests or subtests are to be used, then must the candidate pass all aspects, or can 
excellence in reading and writing make up for inadequate oral performance? 

What test medivun shoiild be used? Today, many new tests, as well as many old 
tests are being given by computer. The paper and pencil test is generally being sup- 
planted. Computer-based test have the advantage of standardization, efficiency, and 
security. Also, when appropriate, individuals can work at their own pace, so issues 
of test speededness are minimized. In this instance, the test of history and govern- 
ment can certainly be given by computer. Reading can also be tested by computer; 
writing may require a written test. Oral language performance may require individ- 
ual testing, although the use of audio tapes or the audio capability of computers is 
feasible today. The computer is probably not up to evaluating spoken responses, but 
it can certainly record such answers for later evaluation by a trained examiner. 

Given content specifications and a choice of medium of administration, the test 
developer can readily develop a large number of test questions, which are called 
items or tasks. A large number of items is needed because some will turn out to 
be poor items. All items should always be pretested to check that they are working 
in the way they are supposed to. Statistical analysis of the resvilts of pretests can 
determine which items must be weeded out. A few will turn out to be too easy or 
too hard, or misleading. Serious problems arise when testing persons for whom Eng- 
lish is not the primary language. It will be necessary to pretest the items with per- 
sons having a variety of language backgrovmds. 

A large number of items is needed for a second reason. If a paper/pencil test is 
used, there should be several versions of the test, for purposes of security and fair- 
ness. For the computer, a large bank of items should be available for the computer 
to draw upon. The best plan would be to use a computer-based mastery test. A mas- 
tery test is designed to make accurate pass/fail decisions. Such tests make no effort 
to distinguish between those who are excellent from those who are only satisfactory, 
nor do mastery tests try to tell how badly someone failed. The test's job is to deter- 
mine whether the candidate passed or failed. The test proceeds until the candidate 
clearly passes or clearly fails. That may occur swiftly, within ten or twelve items, 
or the test may proceed for many more items. Usually the decision can be made 
quickly. Current test theory has been developed so that equivalent tests can be 
formed by selection from a Igirge bank of possible items. 

A third reason for developing many forms of the test is that one or two forms can 
then be disclosed, and can be given to prospective candidates, so that they will be 
familiar with what they will be expected to do on the test. The operational test ver- 
sions should be kept secure, and not disclosed. 

The process of making sure that equivalent versions of a test are fact equivalent, 
is called equating, and is highly statistical, but is a commonplace procedure in test- 
ing organizations. The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, used for initial 
selection of candidates for military service has in the past used six equivalent ver- 
sions at a time, and has replaced them with new versions every few years. Today, 
the test is being given by computer, and uses two or more large banks of test items. 
Equating procedures guarantee that all candidates are treated fairly, even though 
they don't take precisely the same test. 

Once the tests have been developed, they should be checked for reliability. A test 
is reliable when a person who takes the test twice, gets about the same score both 
times. The scores may not be exactly the same, because some degree of measure- 
ment error is inevitable, but the scores should be sufficiently stable to be beUeved. 
For a mastery (pass/fail) test, reliability refers to the consistency of the pass/fail de- 

Validity is another aspect of test quality. Validity refers to the extent to which 
the text measvires what it is intended to measure. In this case, the main evidence 
for assessing validity comes from a check of the test items to be sure they match 
the test specifications, together with a judgment that the test specifications are ap- 

Setting passing scores is not easy. How good is good enough? Current practice in- 
volves assembling subject matter experts to judge, for each test item, the likelihood 
that someone with a borderline proficiency would answer the item correctly. Another 
method involves giving the test to some persons who are clearly proficient and to 
some who are clearly not adequately proficient, and determining the score that best 
separates these known groups. None of the methods is foolproof. The issue of Stand- 


ard-setting is getting much attention these days, and better methods will evolve. Ex- 
pert judgment is inevitably involved. The problem is to obtain expert judgments in 
a consistent manner. 

Senator Sevipson. Thank you, doctor. In your testimony, doctor, 
you say it is very important that tests be standardized, and indeed 
we know that. And then we have this requirement, the abihty to 
read, write and speak words in ordinary usage in the EngHsh lan- 
guage — very different from the American language — as well as 
knowledge and understanding — that is the phrase, "understand- 
ing" — of the fundamentals of U.S. history and the principles and 
form of Grovemment of the United States. 

INS tests this English-speaking ability through the interview, 
and a later witness will testify this morning that those interviews 
are certainly less in time now than ever before because of the 
standardized tests. So when we say the standardized test is some- 
thing that is not the full requirement, it isn't, and we are all cor- 
rect on that, but it is a larger quotient than it was before or else 
we would not be reducing the time of the personal interview. Any- 
way, that is conducted, and I don't beUeve there is a standard set 
of questions or that every examiner requires the same level of abil- 

Do you believe that this kind of process will provide the stand- 
ardization that should be present or that we seek? Do you have any 
suggestions about how the required level of English-speaking abil- 
ity might be tested? I would also be interested in Dr. Feuer's 
thoughts on that issue. 

Mr. Green. Well, using an interview is always dangerous be- 
cause of the interactions of the interviewer and the interviewee. So 
it is always better, to the extent possible, to avoid individual one- 
on-one testing. To some extent, that is not going to be possible 
here, but it certainly can be done with written and reading testing. 
With oral procedures, you can use tapes, and so on, to try to avoid 
the individualization which those of us in the technical side of 
things are always nervous about. It is always best if everything 
happens the same for everybody. 

Senator Simpson. Mr. Feuer. 

Mr. Feuer. On yoiu* second question about ways in which to test 
English, I go back to the question as to how this information is 
going to be used. Senator. I am not aware of frankly any test of 
English that I feel comfortable would be the criterion for citizen- 
ship. I mean, you said it quite eloquently yovirself at the opening 
that either we have questions that are so easy that almost anyone 
can pass, and in some way they represent, you know, what seems 
to be at least an intuitive notion of what basic English is, or they 
become more difficult, in which case you have got a very significant 
standard-setting issue about which I don't think there is really con- 

One of the problems here is that trying to Unk test performance 
to some futiu"e criterion of activity is a tall order. People coming 
into this country go into many lines of work, many types of edu- 
cational experiences, and the kind of Hteracy that they are going 
to need to function effectively varies tremendously. I say that as 
the son of two naturalized citizens and as the husband of a third, 
and we have got all kinds of literacies around my household. But 


people are functioning in many different ways and I don't think 
there is a single test that any one of them should have been subject 
to as a basis for citizenship. 

Senator Simpson. Well, I think one thing that would be helpful 
is to gather together what provisions should perhaps be made in 
a "standardized test" that might be submitted to the bipartisan 
members of the House and Senate committees that have the over- 
sight jurisdiction. Then we won't have these problems where people 
write to us and say, you know, the three colors of the flag, what 
has happened to America, versus somebody who writes to say, well, 
you know, we are not talking about the Federal court system in the 
district where they are from. We do have three branches of govern- 
ment and we do have this. 

It is difficult, and we don't want to be exclusive and do it through 
the testing process. Dr. Feuer, you talk about validity, and you do, 
too. Does a test measure what it is supposed to measure? We will 
have to find what are the "fundamentals of U.S. history," the 
things I suppose we learned in our day. Who was George Washing- 
ton? Maybe they ask that. I don't know. Abraham Lincoln? Thomas 
Jefferson? I think those are important things. 

You state that all test items should be pretested to check to see 
that they are working and to examine whether they are too easy 
or too difficult and, that is going to be tough to design. Then, Dr. 
Feuer, you state that the statutory language does not provide the 
kind of specificity that testmakers would need to design appro- 
priate instruments. 

Do you have any suggestions for us about the t3T)e of statutory 
language or additional guidance that should be provided? That can 
lead us into curious avenues, too, and your thoughts on that, 

Mr. Green. Well, pretesting is easy enough. You have a testing 
program ongoing and so you can at the same time ask them to take 
a series of questions for some experimental test that you are trying 
to produce. You might even say, if you are willing to do this, we 
will give you a reduced fee for having taken the original test. That 
sort of thing can be always worked out, but it is important to do 
because you can never tell by just reading the question whether it 
is really right. It may have some peculiar nuance that you didn't 
expect because you can read English ever so much better than 
these people can. 

Mr. Feuer. I wish I had a specific phrase to suggest to you. I 
would recommend some kind of language that emphasizes the im- 
portance of these kinds of validation techniques and methods as a 
basis for deciding on what kinds of tests to use. If we look around, 
there are some very reputable tests that are used for specific pur- 
poses that have high-stakes consequences. College admissions tests 
of the type that you are very familiar with, I am sure, go through 
very extensive statistical and psychological sort of pretesting and 
validation, all in an effort to maintain the integrity of the whole 
process so that people taking the test have some reasonable sense 
that this is related to future performance. 

The testing companies, the reputable ones that are involved in 
this, devote a good amount of resources to making sure that that 
connection is there, and even then it is controversial, but at least 


that effort is made. Defining what kind of hteracy we really think 
new citizens need in order to function when they acquire this citi- 
zenship is worthy of some kind of public discussion, at least as 
much as the discussion about educational standards for people who 
are already here. 

Senator Simpson. I think that is our goal. It is what we want out 
of persons. We want a sufficient EngUsh ability to respond to peo- 
ple in the community, to respond to emergencies within their fam- 
ily, to respond to directives of teachers or law enforcement persons, 
who can understand an election ballot and what it is, who can ask 
directions and perhaps give directions, and I suppose have some 
knowledge of the front page of a newspaper or a flyer. Those are 
not too much to demand, but those are just sufficient English to be- 
come a successful and productive American without being restric- 
tive in any way. 


Senator Kennedy. A pretty good definition that Senator Simpson 
gave there. You know, there is a sort of folklore up in my part of 
the country about the story about an immigrant who took the test 
and always missed it by one point. He could never get this question 
right and the question was do you favor the overthrow of the Gov- 
ernment by force or violence? 

Senator Simpson. He couldn't figure out which. 

Senator Kennedy. He couldn't figure out which, and he kept fail- 
ing and after he missed it twice, he came up and asked me. 

When you were talking about nuances about how people look at 
it, you know, that was at least allegedly — it is a good story, wheth- 
er it was true or not. 

Senator Simpson. I am writing it down. 

Senator Kennedy. How many repeat the test if they fail it? Do 
you have any kind of awareness about those? Maybe it is better to 
ask the INS. 

Mr. Green. We are not the persons to ask, but I would imagine 
it would be fairly common. 

Senator Kennedy. The other point is we don't really do much fol- 
io wup on people that get by the test on what happens to them; I 
mean, whether there are those who take the test and pass it or get 
certain grades in certain ways and find out where they are in 
terms of their citizenship, and which ones have been effective and 
which ones haven't been. I don't know whether that makes a good 
deal of sense as we come on into this whole area or not. Maybe it 
does, maybe it doesn't, but I think we try and do that in a lot of 
different areas of public policy — postmarketing surveillance in pre- 
scription drugs to try and get them on track early and then careful 
reviews to find out, you know, which ones do and which ones don't, 
and what the tests were for those kinds of things. 

Maybe that is asking too much to try and do an evaluation of the 
people that take the test and pass it and how they turn out. Maybe 
that is too tough. I don't know whether you think you could formu- 
late some kind of way of doing an evaluation of it or not. 

Mr. Green. I think so. For a sample of persons, you could decide 
what things you would really like to have happen a month or a 
year down the road. A month is going to be easier than a year be- 


cause it is hard to keep track of people, but again you have to 
agree. It is going to be ahnost as difficult to agree on what criteria 
you are going to require against which to validate the test as the 
criteria for the inclusion of questions on the test. It is the same 
general kind of a problem. It can be done. It is a research oper- 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Feuer. You would probably want to also include a sample 
of people who failed the test, but who are granted admission any- 
way, and follow their performance and then you would get a real 
comparison of the extent to which the test is really predicting 
something about these people. That is very hard to do. 

Senator Kennedy. Well, one of the bottom lines, not for every- 
one, but certainly one is whether they have moved on into being 
productive citizens and not being a burden in the communities. I 
mean, you know, you could probably get some criteria that are out 

Let me just ask you quickly, on the civics portion of the natu- 
ralization process, it is supposed to measure the applicant's under- 
standing and attachment to the U.S. Constitution. Do you have any 
impressions about whether the current tests do that. Do they do it 
well? Can you give us any kind of impressions? 

Mr. Green. I have not seen any of the current tests. 

Senator Kennedy. OK 

Mr. Feuer. It is very impressionistic. When my wife took this 
test in 1983, I remember coaching her a little bit and feeling grate- 
ful that she was taking the test. 

Senator Kennedy. Also, do you have any impressions about the 
type of quality control the INS should exercise in formulating the 
tests or exams to ensure that we are getting good quality? I mean, 
do you have any guidance either for the Service or for the outside 
groups that are going to be doing these tests? Do you have any sug- 
gestions in terms of quality control, or do you want to think about 
it and get back to us? 

Mr. Green. Offliand, I don't understand why INS isn't doing it 
itself, but I don't know any of the details. And to have two separate 
testing organizations sounds awkward as well in terms of equal 
treatment. There ought to be the same generic tests for everybody, 
I should think. 

Senator Kennedy. OK. I think we will get a chance to look at 
that, probably, in the final analysis. Also, the question about how 
you develop the test with the varied educational backgrounds; I 
think you have commented on that earher. How has that best been 
done from your own kind of experience? You have differing edu- 
cational levels. How does that t^e into consideration the different 
educational levels if the tests are standardized? 

Mr. Green. Well, the main problem with the civics test is to 
make sure that the language is not too complicated because you 
don't want it to be also a test of English, and that is going to be 
an important consideration. But I would think that otherwise, you 
want to find experts who have done this sort of thing. It is not the 
educational background that is the problem. It is the linguistic 
backgrounds and to some extent the cultural background. Concepts 


mean somewhat different things in other cultures and we have to 
be careful about that. 

Senator Kennedy. OK, thank you very much. 

Senator Simpson. Ted, I was reminded of that story. Do you re- 
member the guy out on the street, the man on the street program, 
and he came up to this guy and he put the mike in his face and 
he said, what person do you admire most Uving or dead? And he 
said the living one. [Laughter.] 

I don't know where that goes. Well, I thank you very much for 
your testimony. It was very helpful to us. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much. 

Senator SiMPSON. The final panel is Rosemary Jenks, the direc- 
tor of policy analysis of the Center for Immigration Studies, and 
Kathi Flynn, immigration supervisor of the International Institute 
of Lowell, MA. We welcome both of you to the subcommittee. 

Senator KENNEDY. Could I, Mr. Chairman, just add a word for 
Kathi Flynn? 

Senator Simpson. Yes, indeed, please. 

Senator Kennedy. We have had a lot of experts here this morn- 
ing and it has been, I have found, a very interesting and construc- 
tive hearing. Kathi Flynn is one of those persons who has seen just 
about every side of immigration policy. She has been out in the 
field and has dealt with these issues in local communities and in 
the State. She has been a resource in terms of national policy and 
has been working in an institute that has been very much involved 
in policy issues. So it has been a lifetime of work and we use her 
as a resoiirce on some of these complex issues and I am delighted 
to see her today and welcome her. I want to thank Rosemary 
Jenks, as well, for being here, and a particular welcome for Kathi 

Thank you. 

Senator SiMPSON. Thank you so much. Thanks, Ted. 

If you will please proceed, then, in the order of the witness list, 
Rosemary Jenks, please. 



Ms. Jenks. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy, I want to thank 
you for the opportunity to be here before you to discuss an issue 
that is central to our national identity, the bond that holds us unit- 
ed as one people — U.S. citizenship. 

U.S. citizenship is the most valuable and the most cherished 
privilege our Nation can bestow upon an individual. It is a privi- 
lege that is sought by milhons aroimd the world. It carries with it 
the right to travel freely, to hold certain public offices, and to peti- 
tion for the immigration of family members. Most importantly, 
however, it carries with it the right and the responsibility to take 
part in shaping and securing the future of this country by voting 
for elected officials at all levels of government. 


At issue here today is not simply whether one poUtical party or 
another is seeking an electoral advantage or whether the require- 
ments for naturalization are being circumvented or flouted, but 
rather whether the meaning of U.S. citizenship is being com- 
promised. Thanks to the work of the Subcommittee on National Se- 
curity, International Affairs and Criminal Justice of the House 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and the integrity of 
a number of INS employees from across the Nation, the evidence 
is clear. 

Unfortunately, it presents a disturbing picture of changes to the 
naturalization process, apparently driven by a White House moti- 
vated by election year concerns that have far-reaching implications 
and that will endure long after next month's balloting. These 
changes set a troubling precedent for future administrations. 
Democratic or Republican, and for future generations of Americans. 

The documents show that an initial push by INS management to 
expedite the naturalization process was overtaken by an election- 
year drive by the White House to register as many new voters as 
possible before November. The combination of these forces has re- 
sulted in chaos and confusion in INS offices, a perception by INS 
adjudicators that their job is to rubber-stamp applications as far as 
possible, and a collapse of the integrity of the naturalization proc- 
ess. I will try to briefly summarize the progression of the events 
that led to the current situation. 

During INS Commissioner Doris Meissner's confirmation hearing 
in the fall of 1993, Ms. Meissner correctly described naturalization 
as a process that is beneficial to immigrants, to America, and to 
the INS. She indicated her intention to place a high priority on 
naturalization. I think we would all agree that an efficient and 
timely naturalization process is a laudable goal, provided it is done 
in a thoughtful and responsible way. I do not doubt that that is ex- 
actly what Commissioner Meissner had in mind. Somewhere along 
the way, however, it appears that the plan was commandeered by 
people whose only goals are speed and high numbers. 

The INS expected applications for naturalization to surge in fis- 
cal year 1995 as a result of a combination of factors, and so in April 
1995 Commissioner Meissner contracted a management consulting 
firm, PRC, to work with INS staff to overhaul the naturalization 
process. The final report, "Results in 30 Days: Reeingineering the 
Naturalization Process," issued in May 1995, suggests a, "radical 
redesign," of naturalization. It recommends that INS develop 
strong partnerships with service providers, community-based orga- 
nizations and voluntary agencies which would involve "total shar- 
ing of information, joint decisionmaking, and aggressive coloration 
aimed at best meeting the needs of the applicant,". 

It suggests the introduction of high-tech, fully automated and in- 
tegrated systems to facilitate data entry and criminal background 
checks, in addition to automatically triggering "pre-qualified invita- 
tions to immigrants as they become legally eligible for citizenship." 
It calls for a review of, "longstanding interpretations of eligibility 
laws and regulations" in order to meet the demands of today's eligi- 
ble customers. PRC's conclusion is that processing time from sub- 
mission to approval can be reduced to same-day service for 80 per- 
cent of naturalization applicants. 


In June 1995, Commissioner Meissner asked that the naturaHza- 
tion program be designated as a reinvention lab under the auspices 
of Vice President Grore's National Performance Review. Ms. 
Meissner wanted to establish the INS offices with the largest natu- 
ralization backlogs as reinvention labs so that some of the PRC rec- 
ommendations could be tested and the backlogs eliminated. 

On August 31, 1995, the INS announced the Citizenship USA, or 
CUSA, Program. Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Miami 
and Chicago were designated as CUSA cities. Over the next few 
months, new naturalization procedures were established in, and re- 
sources, including personnel and equipment, were diverted from 
other programs and other INS offices to the 5 CUSA cities. Two re- 
programming requests were approved by Congress to provide addi- 
tional funding. 

During this period, the White House was becoming increasingly 
interested in the naturalization process. The possibility of sending 
personalized letters to new citizens from the President was dis- 
cussed and abandoned, and memos were prepared at the request 
of high-level White House political aides on voter registration ef- 
forts in conjunction with the naturalization program. 

In February 1996, an aide to Vice President Gore offered INS the 
assistance of her office. That offer was accepted and at the request 
of the President, aides to Vice President Gore Elaine Kamarck and 
Doug Farbrother evidently became the liaisons between the INS 
and the White House on naturalization. Mr. Farbrother ordered 
INS offices to extend the hours during which they interviewed nat- 
uralization applicants to include evenings and weekends, thus forc- 
ing some offices to mandate overtime work by employees. He 
toured all the CUSA sites with David Rosenberg, the consultant 
who INS put in charge of CUSA, in order to determine if CUSA 
was "moving fast enough. 

Because he felt INS' hiring process was too slow, he pressured 
Commissioner Meissner and Deputy Commissioner Chris Sale to 
delegate full hiring authority to CUSA district directors to estab- 
lish a "special security process" that would allow new hires to begin 
working while their background checks were being done and to au- 
thorize a 20-percent increase in CUSA funding to be used at the 
discretion of the district directors. 

There is clear evidence that INS resisted some of these moves. 
Mr. Farbrother repeatedly tells Ms. Kamarck that there is too 
much interference from INS headquarters. In one E-mail, he com- 
plains about the interference and wonders, "am I going to have to 
keep dragging the ball and chain toward the finish line." In fact, 
the resistance from INS headquarters led Mr. Farbrother to rec- 
ommend that he personally replace INS Deputy Commissioner Sale 
so that he would be in a position to "do more faster." 

But in the end, Mr. Farbrother got what he wanted from INS. 
Even those things that were refused by INS headquarters, such as 
the hiring of temp workers and the illegal use of volunteers, while 
not officially sanctioned by INS, were done in the CUSA offices. In 
a March 28 E-mail to Vice President Gore, Mr. Farbrother con- 
firmed what many in Congress were beginning to suspect, namely 
that the White House was being driven by the desire to naturalize 


as many immigrants as possible before the election in order to give 
President Clinton an electoral advantage. 

The E-mail stated that Mr. Farbrother was still not confident 
that INS was moving fast enough to, "produce 1 million new citi- 
zens before election day." He concluded that "Unless we blast INS 
headquarters loose from their grip on the front-line managers, we 
are going to have way too many people still waiting for citizenship 
in November. I can't make Doris Meissner delegate broad authority 
to her field managers. Can you." 

As a result of all this — and I am concluding right now; sorry — 
the current naturalization process is far different from the one en- 
visioned in our law. While the initial goals of Commissioner 
Meissner's INS may have been laudable, it is clear now that expe- 
diency won out over integrity. Preexisting problems were 
compounded and the result was the granting of our Nation's most 
prized benefit, citizenship, to criminals. The naturalization system 
has been compromised not only in the eyes of INS employees who 
now refer to it either as the Jiffy Lube program or Nats-R-Us, but 
also in the eyes of Americans, native-bom and naturalized. 

Thank you. 

Senator Simpson. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jenks follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Rosemary Jenks 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Rosemary Jenks, Director 
of PoHcy Analysis at the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit, non-advocacy 
research institution. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss 
£in issue that is central to our national identity, the bond that holds us united as 
one people: United States citizenship. United States citizenship is the most valuable 
and the most cherished privilege our nation can bestow upon an individual. It is 
a privilege that is sought by millions around the world. It carries with it the right 
to travel freely, to hold certain public offices and to petition for the immigration of 
family members. Most importantly, however, it carries with it the right, and the re- 
sponsibility, to take part in shaping and securing the future of this country by vot- 
ing for elected officials at all levels of government. 

We have all seen media reports on the politicization of the naturalization process, 
the "dumbing-down" of the requirements for naturalization, cheating by naturaliza- 
tion applicants at outside testing entities, and criminals and other ineligible aliens 
being granted U.S. citizenship. At issue here today is not simply whether one politi- 
cal party or another is seeking an electoral advantage or whether the requirements 
for naturalization are being circumvented or flouted, but rather whether the mean- 
ing of United States citizenship is being compromised. If the media reports are accu- 
rate, then our conclusion must be yes. 

In order to determine the accuracy of the reports, we must examine the evidence. 
Thanks to the work of the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs 
and Criminal Justice of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee 
and the integrity of a number of INS employees from across the nation, this evi- 
dence is available. Unfortunately, it presents a disturbing picture of changes to the 
naturalization process, apparently motivated by election-year concerns, that have 
far-reaching implications that will endure long after next month's balloting. These 
changes set a troubling precedent for futvire administrations — Democratic or Repub- 
lican — and for future generations of Americans. 

Attached to this statement is a "Naturahzation Chronology," which I have pieced 
together after reviewing thousands of pages of documents, including e-mail ex- 
changes, from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the White House, 
and the Office of the Vice President, and speaking with numerous INS employees 
around the country. I use the chronology as a general guideline to examine the cur- 
rent naturalization process and how it developed. 

The requirements for natvu-gdization are set out in the Immigration and National- 
ity Act. Among other things, applicants are required to submit an application form, 
the N-400, a copy of their alien registration card, the "green card," fingerprints, 
photographs and a fee of $95 to the INS. In general, they must prove that they are 


at least 18 years of age; that they have resided in the United States as lawful per- 
manent residents for a minimum of five years (unless they marry a U.S. citizen, in 
which case it is three years); that they are able to read, write, speak and under- 
stand English; that they have at least a minimal knowledge of U.S. history and gov- 
ernment; that they are of good moral character; and that they do not have a serious 
criminal record. Upon receiving the N— 400 and the accompanying paper work, INS 
enters the information into an INS database and forwards the fingerprints to the 
FBI for a criminal record check. INS is then required to wait for 60 days for a reply 
fi-om the FBI. If the FBI finds a criminal record, or a "hit," the fingerprints are sent 
back to the INS office along with a copy of the criminal record. If no criminal record 
is found, the INS does not get a response from the FBI and can proceed with the 
adjudication process after 60 days. INS examiners (or District Adjudications Offi- 
cers, DAOs) then schedule an interview with the applicant, during which the appli- 
cant is tested on English, history and government knowledge and asked questions 
to determine good moral character. If all the requirements are met, the application 
is approved and the applicant is scheduled for a swearing in ceremony. Otherwise, 
the application is either denied or continued, depending on the nature of the prob- 


In 1991, the government established criteria under which outside (i.e., non-gov- 
ernment) testing entities (OTEs), including for-profit business, could be authorized 
to administer standardized tests to determine a naturalization applicant's abiUty to 
read and write in English, along with his or her knowledge of history and civics (see 
attachment 2). The tests are comprised mainly of multiple choice questions, but ap- 
plicants silso have to write two simple sentences that are dictated to them. To date, 
the INS has authorized six OTEs to administer these tests: Educational Testing 
Service (ETS), Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS), South- 
east College, Naturalization Assistance Services (NAS), Marich Associates and 
American College Testing (ACT). These OTEs in turn may license community based 
organizations (CBOs) and other affiliates to administer the tests on their behalf, in 
compliance with the requirements set out in the Federal Register notice. However, 
neither INS, nor the individuals OTEs have an effective monitoring process to en- 
sure that requirements relating to the security of the tests or the integrity of the 
testing are met. 

The first indications of trouble with the system came in 1992, when INS examin- 
ers began to encounter naturalization applicants who presented test certificates (in- 
dicating that they had passed the standardized tests) at their interviews, but were 
unable to communicate in or understand English. ETS complained to INS Head- 

auarters that some examiners were refusing to accept ETS test certificates as evi- 
ence that applicants had passed the written/read English and history/civics test. 
Headquarters sent a memo to the field offices forbidding examiners from retesting 
applicants and directing them, instead, to question applicants (through an inter- 
preter) on how they were able to pass the test. 

In July 1994, NAS presented a proposal to INS to be authorized as an OTE (see 
attachment 3). NAS lists how it meets each of the criteria in the Federal Register 
notice, except that it details its experience in "Driver Improvement School" for the 
first criterion, which requires a testing entity to "demonstrate experience in develop- 
ing and administering reliable standard examination in the English language and 
civics areas" [emphasis added]. NAS clearly does not have such experience, and so 
should have been found ineligible. Nonetheless, NAS quickly established itself as 
the leader of OTEs, setting up hundreds of testing sites across the nation. Half of 
all naturalization applicants tested by OTEs use one of the 500 or so NAS affiliates. 

The point of contact at INS Headquarters for "information on the citizenship test- 
ing programs, including test site additions and deletions," in July 1994 was W.R. 
"Skip" ToUifson, a Senior Immigration Examiner. Mr. Tollifson retired from the INS 
on March 29, 1996 and began working for NAS on April 1, 19G6. He testified, under 
oath, during a September 10, 1996 hearing of the House National Security, Inter- 
national Affairs and Criminal Justice Subcommittee that he "did not, per se, ap- 
prove this [NAS] application." and that he did not consider taking a job at NAS to 
be an ethics violation. An Ethics Officer in the INS General Counsel Office, on the 
other hand, wrote in an email exchanger 

Employees have suggested to me that Tollifson approved NAS, a natu- 
ralization testing entity even though they did not meet the Service's cri- 
teria, failed to properly monitor NAS; he was overheard negotiating for em- 
ployment and has now violated the post employment restriction laws * * * 
(see Attachment 4). 


Reports of testing fraud at affiliates of the OTEs began to increase dramatically 
in late 1994. INS examiners came across increasing numbers of naturalization appli- 
cants who, despite having an OTE test certificate, were unable to communicate in 
or understand English. Some affiliates were charging as much as $850 to prepare 
and test immigrants. Examples of documented fraud during the administration of 
the tests include test proctors pointing to the correct answers on the answer sheet, 
tests being given in the applicants' native language instead of English, and the sen- 
tences being written on a blackboard so applicants simply have to copy them. Some 
affiliates guaranteed that, as long as applicants could sign their names in English, 
they would pass the test. Affiliates were using print media — often ethnic news- 
papers — radio and television ads to advertise their services. Some ads included false 
promises and/or blatant lies, but there were no regulations governing the content 
of the ads. In October 1995, INS Headquarters instructed field offices that the "in- 
ability [of an applicant with an OTE certificate] to speak English may not be the 
sole reason" for determining that there was fraud in the testing. 

Testing fraud was uncovered in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Il- 
linois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas 
and Virginia. In Tucson, AZ, an examiner emailed his supervisor asking how to han- 
dle an applicant who failed his interview because of lack of knowledge of history 
and government, and then returned two days later with a test certificate from ETS. 
The supervisor responded, "Punt, what else. If his English was alright, we have one 
more U.S. citizen" (see attachment 5). 

The three most-publicized cases were in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Honolulu and Dal- 
las. In November 1995, an investigative reporter from a St. Paul television station 
took a hidden video camera into an NAS-affiliated testing site and recorded test 
proctors drilling applicants on the test questions and answers prior to the test, ap- 
plicants sharing answers, and the test proctors giving applicants the correct an- 
swers during the test. 

INS suspended NAS on November 22, after seeing the broadcast of this tape, and 
gave NAS ten days to respond to the allegations of fraud or request a hearing before 
Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications, Louis Crocetti. On December 5, NAS' 
lawyers demanded that NAS be reinstated until a hearing could be held or they 
woiild file a lawsuit in Federal Court. On December 13, INS and NAS signed a stip- 
ulated settlement agreement under which NAS was reinstated with certain condi- 
tions, including the permanent suspension of the St. Paul affiliate. NAS fiirther 
agreed to comply with new criteria for quality control, as long as all OTEs would 
have to do the same. INS agreed to apologize in writing for any trouble caused by 
the suspension to NAS and all NAS affiliates in good standing (see attachment 6). 
INS Headquarters also convened a working group to develop official guidelines for 
INS investigations of testing fraud, as there appeared to be none in existence. 

On January 22, 1996, following an investigation by the IHS Honolulu District Of- 
fice, INS directed NAS to suspend an affiliate in Honolulu. The INS investigation 
led to the arrest and criminal prosecution of four employees of the affiliate. No ac- 
tion was taken against NAS following that incident, but in February, INS Head- 
quarters officials discussed the possibility of designating a contact person to track 
all testing entity violations, in case INS needed a record of them for litigation. Also 
in February, INS documents indicate that the INS Office of Internal Audit was co- 
operating with the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General (OIG) on an 
OIG investigation of testing fraud. 

In early 1996, a former NAS employee, Jewell Elghazali, contacted the investiga- 
tive reporter who had uncovered the fraud in St. Paul and told him of additional 
testing fraud. The reporter put her in touch with "20/20", which then began an un- 
dercover investigation of an NAS affiliate in Dallas, TX. "20/20" took a hidden video 
camera into the testing site and taped test proctors giving the applicants the ques- 
tions and answers to the test prior to its administration, pointing to correct answers 
on the answer sheets during the test, and speaking to the applicants in Spanish, 
among other things. Ms. Elghazali told "20/20" that, while she was grading tests for 
NAS, she came across entire batches of tests in the same handwriting and with the 
same incorrect answers on every test. 

In April 1996, INS Headquarters sent instructions to the field offices on proce- 
dvu"es to follow to report and initiate investigations of complaints of testing fraud. 
In May 1996, after it was notified of the "20/20" investigation, INS Headquarters 
sent a memo to field offices with guidelines on conducting unannounced on-site in- 
spections of testing sites. The guidelines require each District Office to visit one site 
per quarter. 

On June 10, 1996, "20/20" interviewed INS Executive Associate Commissioner T. 
Alexander Aleinikoff regarding the tape from Dallas (see attachment 7). Mr. 
Aleinikoff was unable to explain why NAS had been authorized as an OTE, in light 


of its experience in driver's education. However, he assured "20/20" that simply 
passing the standardized test does not mean an apphcant will be naturalized be- 
cause he or she still has to demonstrate the ability to communicate in and under- 
stand English at the INS interview. When asked whether it might be conflict of in- 
terest that Mr. ToUifson works for NAS, Mr. AleinikofF stated numerous times that 
there was an "on-going investigation" into Mr. ToUifson's activities. However, at- 
tachment 4, dated three days after the interview, notes that Mr. Aleinikoff wanted 
INS to "commence an investigation." 

On June 28, 1996, INS issued NAS a "Notice of Intent to Suspend." On July 12, 
INS Headquarters sent a memo to the field offices directing them to continue to ac- 
cept NAS testing certificates. To my knowledge, no further action has been taken 
against NAS to date. 

The number of licensed affiliates of the six authorized OTEs grew from 309 in 
May 1993 to over 1,000 by mid- 1996. Reported incidents of testing fi-aud also in- 
creased dramatically. As of July 10, 1996, INS reported that about 25 percent 
(250,000-300,000) of all naturalization applicants used the OTEs. Their overall pass 
rate is 85 percent, although the pass rate for NAS is 93 percent. 

"re-engineering" naturalization 

Doris Meissner was sworn in as Commissioner of the INS in October 1993. During 
her confirmation hearing, Mrs. Meissner correctly described naturalization as a 
process that is beneficial to immigrants, to America and to the INS. She indicated 
her "intention to be much more active on the part of the Service where naturaliza- 
tion is concerned." I think we would all agree that an efficient and timely natu- 
ralization process is a laudable goal, provided it is done in a thoughtful and respon- 
sible way. I do not doubt that that is exactly what Commissioner Meissner had in 
mind. Somewhere along the way, however, it appears that the plan was com- 
mandeered by people whose only goals are speed and high numbers. 

As noted in the attached chronology, about 270,000 N-400 applications were 
pending (not including any that had been received, but not been entered into the 
computer) when Commissioner Meissner took office. According to testimony before 
the House National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice Subcommit- 
tee, a 1994 General Accounting Office study found that about 80 percent of N-400s 
were processed within four months during that year, although the wait was seven 
to ten months in certain cities. The number of N-400 applications received in fiscal 
year 1994 surpassed fiscal year 1993 receipts by only 21,487. In fiscal year 1995, 
however, INS expected a much larger increase because of a combination of factors, 
including the 2.7 million beneficiaries of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control 
Act (IRCA) amnesty becoming eligible based on the five-years residence require- 
ment, the passage of Proposition 187 in California in November 1994, and legisla- 
tive proposEils to bar non-citizens ft-om certain means-tested welfare benefits. 

Thus, an INS working group conducted a survey in June 1994 of ways to stream- 
line the naturalization process. One of the proposals they came up with was to 
waive the personal interview for a number of categories of applicants (see attach- 
ment 8). 

Naturalization was identified as a "major reinvention effort" in April 1995, accord- 
ing to Associate Commissioner for Examinations, Louis Crocetti. That same month, 
Commissioner Meissner contracted a management consulting firm, PRC, to work 
with INS staff to overhaul the naturalization process. PRC and the INS staff con- 
ducted a four-week review of the process and produced a "radical redesign" of natu- 
ralization. The final report, issued in May 1995, is called Results in 30 Days: Re- 
Engineering the Naturalization Process (see attachment 9). Among other things, it 
recommends that INS develop strong partnerships with "Service Providers" — com- 
munity-based organizations (CBOs) and voluntary agencies (VOLAGS) — which 
would involve "total sharing of information, joint decision making, and aggressive 
coloration aimed at best meeting the needs of the applicant." It recommends the in- 
troduction of high tech, fiiUy automated and integrated systems to facilitate data 
entry and criminal background checks, in addition to automatically triggering "pre- 
qualified 'invitations' to immigrants as they become legally eligible for citizenship." 
It adds that "long-standing interpretations of eligibility laws and regulations will be 
reviewed to * * * [focus] upon meeting the demands of todaj^s eligible customers." 
Finally, it concludes that processing time fi-om submission "to approval will be re- 
duced to 'same day service' for 80 percent of the applicants." 

In June 1995, Congress approved a reprogramming request fi-om INS to provide 
additional funding for the naturalization initiative. On June 26, Commissioner 
Meissner submitted a request that the naturaUzation program be designated as a 
"Reinvention Lab" under the auspices of Vice President Gore's National Perform- 


ance Review (NPR — see attachment 10). Her request letter and subsequent INS doc- 
umentation make clear that the PRC report provided the basis for the "re-engineer- 
ing" of the naturalization process that has occurred over the past year. 

In the meantime, N-400 applications were on the rise and examiners were being 
overwhelmed. District Offices lacked the equipment they needed to process N— 400s 
efficiently. Many offices did not have access to the Naturalization Automated Case 
System (NACS) database, and those that did were experiencing problems with it. 
Many offices were (and, reportedly, are) still using electronic typewriters to process 

On August 1-2, 1995, INS convened a "Key Cities Meeting" with representatives 
from the Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York, San Diego and 
San Francisco INS offices, where 80 percent of the INS' workload is concentrated. 
Commissioner Meissner introduced these employees to the PRC re-engineering re- 
port, explaining that because some "radical" changes would be included, a commu- 
nications plan was being prepared to clarify the program. 

During a senior-level naturalization staff meeting on August 2, it was decided 
that the staff needed to follow up on the status of the Reinvention Lab designation 
to pursue "facilities, contracting and procvu-ement issues that warrant immediate ex- 
emption to creating policies, regulations, etc," (see attachment 11). It was also deter- 
mined that a memo designating David Rosenberg as the Naturalization Re-Engi- 
neering Project Coordinator needed to be drafted, and Mr. Rosenberg's contract ex- 

Commissioner Meissner unveiled the "Citizenship USA" (CUSA) initiative on Au- 
gust 31, 1995. The stated objective of CUSA, at least initially, was "to become cur- 
rent" on N-400 applications, meaning that applications would be processed from 
start to citizenship within six months by the end of fiscal year 1996. INS designated 
five "CUSA cities," including Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Miami and 
Chicago, which had the largest numbers of pending cases when the program started. 
Resources, including personnel, equipment and building space, were to be funneled 
into these five cities, which would serve as the "Reinvention Labs." 

The naturalization initiative was approved as an NPR Reinvention Lab on Sep- 
tember 5, 1995. On September 11, Commissioner Meissner forwarded to all field of- 
fices the executive summary of the PRC report with a memo explaining its origin 
and asking for comments (see attachment 12). She wrote that "wherever possible, 
we will use vahdated re-engineering techniques as outlined in the PRC report to at- 
tack the caseload." She added that the report offers "a basic road map for change." 

On September 21, 1995, a manager with UNICOR, a Federal prison in Lexington, 
KY, called the INS in Miami to offer the assistance of UNICOR inmates in prepar- 
ing naturalization certificates. The INS employee who took the call emailed Head- 
quarters and his supervisors in Miami to inform them of the offer. He noted that 
there were two potential problem areas: 1) the certificates are prepared from NACS, 
and "some people might not be comfortable with a direct data link to a federal pris- 
on;" and 2) "would be the public relations aspect of having prisoners producing natu- 
ralization certificates," especiaUy since some of UNICOR's "employees" are illegal 
aliens. Nonetheless, the employee saw "nothing impossible about this situation," and 
suggested that the INS consider it (see attachment 13). 

Beginning in mid-October, INS Regional and District Directors were notified that 
they would be reqviired to detail personnel — including Adjudications Officers, In- 
spectors, Investigators, Boarder Patrol Agents, Special Agents, Asylum Officers and 
clerical workers — to the CUSA offices. As might be expected, the effect on the offices 
losing the workers was devastating. Offices were unable to perform crucial duties 
such as employer sanctions enforcement, investigations targeting criminal aliens, 
adjudications and airport inspections. The funneUng of resources into CUSA sites 
also raised funding questions (see attachment 14). 

An INS working group was convened in October 1995 to identify and solve the 
on-going problems with NACS, but problems persisted well into 1996 (there is no 
indication that they have been solved to date). FBI fingerprint and name checks also 
presented problems. Fingerprint "hits" (indicating a criminal record) from the FBI 
oflen were not placed in the application file until afler the application was approved 
for naturalization. On November 16, 1995, INS staff discovered that "for the last 
8-10 years [FBI responses on records checks] have been immediately burned," 
meaning that INS was "destroying the hits on 1/2 of our name checks (at a cost of 
probably $1,000,000 per year) and naturalizing an assortment of scum" (see attach- 
ment 15). 

In January 1996, INS implemented a "Direct Mail" initiative in all the CUSA 
cities except San Francisco. Under this system, N— 400s are mailed directly to one 
of the four INS Service Centers (Vermont Service Center (VSC), Nebraska Service 
Center (NSC), Texas Service Center (TSC) and California Service Center (CSC) in- 


stead of being submitted to District Offices. The Service Centers are supposed to 
enter the appUcation data into NACS and pull the fingerprint cards and submit 
them daily to the FBI. When the fingerprint cards have been submitted, Service 
Center staff are to enter an "X" in the appropriate place in the NACS record, which 
should automatically start the clock for the 60-day waiting period. When 60 days 
have passed, the record should automatically come up on the District Office com- 
puter as being ready for an interview to be scheduled. If the FBI has made a hit, 
the fingerprints and criminal record are sent to the Service Center, which is sup- 
posed to report daily to the District Office on any hits so that interviews will not 
be scheduled until the hard copy of the criminal record has been forwarded to the 
District Office. 

The implementation of the Direct Mail initiative resulted in almost immediate 
chaos. Neither Service Center staff" nor District Offices fiilly understood the new 
procedures. The Service Centers were not filling in the "X" so the 60-day clock was 
not being started. Because the system is automated, the computers in the District 
Offices will not bring up the records for interview scheduling until the 60-day clock 
is initiated and terminates. Thus, the problem was noticed when District Office com- 
puters showed no applicants who were ready to be interviewed, even though an esti- 
mated 84,000 were in the system. INS' answer to the problem was to run a system- 
wide sweep to bypass the 60-day waiting period on all N— 400 applications entered 
into the system by the Service Centers on or after February 2, 1996. The sweep was 
"deemed to be within acceptable process integrity standards" and was "designated 
a priority by Programs and Field Operations as the four subject sites are nearing 
a crisis situation regarding eligible cases to be scheduled for interview" (see attach- 
ment 16). 

Thus, by February 1996, the INS was in a state of utter chaos because of a pro- 
gram that began officially only about four months before. INS offices around the 
country were being overwhelmed by the increase in N-400 applications — the largest 
group of aliens amnestied in 1986 had met the five-year residence requirement by 
December 1995. CUSA offices, in addition to being inundated with backlogged and 
new cases, were attempting to adopt the new "re-engineered" and streamlined adju- 
dication process, thus compounding the confusion. Non-CUSA offices had been 
forced to detail some portion of their resources, mainly personnel, to the CUSA of- 
fices, so they, too, were falling behind. As noted in the attached chronology, the 
number of N--400 applications pending on October 1, 1995 surpassed 800,000, and 
new applications were being received in record numbers. 


Until early 1996, the push to "re-engineer" the naturalization process and speed 
up the adjudication of cases appeared to be coming from within INS management. 
Beginning in March 1996, however, there is no question that the overriding impetus 
began coming directly from the White House. In fact, the documents show that INS 
Headquarters actually tried to slow the naturalization juggernaut — at least partly 
for political appearances — but was overruled by higher powers. 

The first indication of White House interest in the naturalization initiative was 
in September 1994, when Daniel Solis, then President and Executive Director of the 
United Neighborhood Organization of Chicago (UNO), met President Clinton at a 
Democratic fundraiser in Chicago. Mr. SoUs explained to the President that the 
growing number of immigrants eligible for naturalization represented a "great op- 
portunity" to get a million new voters, but "we have to get all these citizens natural- 
ized." The President told Mr. Solis to contact senior White House political aides 
Harold Ickes and Rahm Emanuel. On October 27, 1994, Mr. Solis sent President 
Clinton a letter detailing what needed to be done to speed up naturalization. The 
letter was a foUowup to a dinner meeting between the President, Mr. Solis and oth- 
ers (see attachment 17). 

In July 1995, Lee Ann Inadomi, Office of Cabinet Affairs, responded to a request 
by INS Executive Associate Commissioner Robert Bach for information on the possi- 
bihty of President Clinton writing personalized letters to newly naturalized citizens. 
Ms. Inadomi pointed out that there were practical (e.g., investment of resources, 30 
percent of N--400 applicants are not on NACS), legal (e.g., it could violate the Pri- 
vacy Act) and political (i.e., it could be sent as campaign politics) problems. Less 
than a week later, the White House requested information from INS on how such 
person£dized letters might be provided (see attachment 18). 

Apparently that idea was abandoned because, as of August 1995, INS District Di- 
rectors were being reminded to provide the standard presidential congratulatory let- 
ter. The memo to the field notes that the White House "has estabUshed [provision 
of the letter] as a priority." Emails from late September 1995 indicate that INS of- 


fices were running short on the letters and there was some degree of panic among 
INS st£iff who noted that "the White House is rather insistent" that the letter be 
provided (see attachment 19). 

On September 28, 1995, Mr. Solis sent a letter to First Lady Hillary Clinton to 
follow up on a recent conversation on the political potential for naturalization 
streamlining. He noted that INS officials approached IJNO with the opportunity to 
participate in a backlog reduction pilot program that also "may provide the Demo- 
crats with a strategic advantage at next year's Convention." His purpose was to es- 
tablish "support for the proposed pilot program in order to overcome the politics of 
its implementation" (see attachment 20). 

Also in September 1995, a memo was prepared for White House aide Harold Ickes 
to update him on the nattu-alization initiative and assure him that CUSA will in- 
clude voter registration efforts. The memo concludes that while "the INS effort at 
voter registration," along with the efforts of others, is resulting in registration of 
new citizens, "pace of naturalization will limit the niunber of new voters." A follow 
up memo was sent to Mr. Ickes in March 1996 with a more positive outlook on the 
CUSA voter registration drive (see attachment 21). 

In January 1996, Congress approved a second INS reprogramming request for the 
naturalization program, bring the total reprogramming funds to about $80 million. 
The following month, Mr. Rosenberg notified the White House that "INS is hiring 
more than 850 additional staff to process appUcations," although in fact, his inten- 
tion was to hire more than 900 temporary workers (attachment 22). He requested 
assistance from the Vice President's Office in acquiring personnel, ceremony space 
and funding for CUSA (see attachment 23). 

Doug Farbrother from Vice President Gore's NPR office responded zealously to 
Mr. Rosenberg's request. Mr. Farbrother immediately began looking into extending 
INS office hours so that they could conduct naturalization interviews on evenings 
and weekends. He noted INS' concern that the General Services Administration 
(GSA) might object to providing guards and utilities for extended hours, but indi- 
cated his attention to go forward. Ten days later, INS CUSA Offices were notified 
that they would be extending their hours on evenings and weekends (see attach- 
ment 24). 

Mr. Farbrother also decided that the INS hiring process was too slow. He saw no 
need for INS to wait for complete background checks on new hires before bringing 
them on board. He felt that INS could fingerprint new hires and put them to work 
while the background checks were being done. The Department of Justice had de- 
nied an earlier request from the INS Headquarters Security office to do 'lesser 
scope" background investigations for CUSA temporary workers, but ten days after 
Mr. Farbrother considered the issue, INS Deputy Commissioner Chris Sale in- 
structed CUSA offices to "do limited clearances * * * (fingerprint check, and drug 
testing, only). The remaining process will be done while on-duty." The result was 
that some of the CUSA workers who were hired, and already on-duty, were found 
to have security problems, but could not be terminated until the full 120-day back- 
ground investigation had been completed. Moreover, INS Security ran out of funding 
to do background checks on employees who had already been hired and were work- 
ing (see attachment 25). 

In early March 1995, INS Headquarters staff forwarded via email a message from 
Commissioner Meissner regarding a promise she had made to White House aide 
Rahm Emanuel to provide an update and subsequent newsletters on CUSA progress 
to Attorney General Reno, Chief of StzifF Panetta, Vice President Gore, HUD Sec- 
retary Cisneros and other key White House aides (see attachment 26). 

Following a meeting with Commissioner Meissner in mid-March, Mr. Farbrother 
faxed a memo to Deputy Commissioner Sale explaining that he needed either Ms. 
Sale or Commissioner Meissner to delegate more authority to the District Directors 
in the CUSA cities in order to "get the results the Vice President wants." Mr. 
Farbrother included a draft memo (later edited), for Commissioner Meissner's signa- 
ture, delegating to the District Directors her "authority to waive INS rules and reg- 
ulations." INS Counsel clearly questioned the legality of such a delegation of author- 
ity (see attachment 27). 

In the meantime, Mr. Farbrother was accompanying Mr. Rosenberg on a tour of 
all the CUSA cities to examine the effectiveness of the initiative and determine 
what additional resources they might need. The purpose of the trip "was to answer 
the question: Is CUSA moving fast enough, given the delays caused by budget and 
fiirloughs?" Mr. Farbrother and Ms. Elaine Karmarck, Office of the Vice President, 
were becoming increasingly annoyed with delays in INS Headquarters. They wanted 
Deputy Commissioner Sale to sign the delegation of authority letter so they could 
speed up the hiring process in the CUSA cities. On March 21, 1995, Ms. Kamarck 
notified Mr. Farbrother via email that "the President is sick of this and wants ac- 

41-503 97-3 


tion. If nothing moves today we'll have to take some pretty drastic measures." Mr. 
Farbrother responded that he was meeting with Deputy Attorney General Jamie 
Gorelick and Deputy Commissioner Sale in two days. He stated that if they didn't 
cooperate with him, he wovdd "call for heavy artillery." 

Mr. Farbrother briefed Vice President Gore in emial following that meeting and 
reported that Deputy Attorney General Gorelick had told Ms. Kamarck that INS 
would "deliver by Tuesday." In fact, she delivered on Monday. Deputy Commissioner 
Sale signed a memo to CUSA District Directors announcing a 20 percent funding 
increase, delegation of fiill authority over funding and hiring, and expedited drug 
testing procedures and a "special security process" for new hires. Followdng this de- 
cision, INS Headquarters increased the CUSA "production goals" by almost 40 per- 
cent. Again, Mr. Farbrother briefed Vice President Gk>re via email on the delegation 
of hiring and funding authority. He noted, however, that the CUSA Directors still 
do not 'Tiave enough freedom to do the job" (see attachment 28). 

The follovdng day, Mr. Farbrother emailed Vice President Gore about a bet he 
had made with Ms. Kamarck that "INS headquarters would not give their managers 
in" the CUSA cities "enough authority, in general, to make me confident they could 
produce a million new citizens before election day" [emphasis added]. He concluded 
that "unless we blast INS headquarters loose from their grip on the frontline man- 
agers, we are going to have way too many people still waiting for citizenship in No- 
vember. I can't make Doris Meissner delegate broad authority to her field managers. 
Can you?" (see attachment 29). 

A couple of days later, Mr. Fau-brother emailed Ms. Kamarck with his ideas on 

1) blunting "any charge that we are running a citizenship/Clinton voter mill," and 

2) how to avoid the appearance that he is "working against Doris [Meissner"] (he 
suggests that he take over Deputy Conunissioner Sale's job and that Ms. Sale could 
work at NPR-see attachment 30). 

During the same period, Mr. Farbrother began asking other Federal agencies to 
find personnel — particularly those who had been RIFed or furloughed — and re- 
sources that could be diverted to CUSA. On April 1, he reported to Ms. Kamarck 
that he had made some progress in getting help from other agencies in Los Angeles 
and San Francisco, but he complained that "they are still getting way too much in- 
terference from headquarters. Am I going to have to keep dragging that ball and 
chain toward the finish line?" (see attachment 31). 

In early April, Mr. Farbrother drafted a memo for President Clinton on "Improv- 
ing Service for Citizenship Applicants." The first draft again suggested that an NPR 
employee replace Deputy Commissioner Sale so that "our reinventor would have 
more direct influence and the INS staff would be less likely to go public with com- 
plaints than they would over the interference of an outsider." The second draft, sent 
via emial to Ms. Kamarck on April 10, included a section called "Lower the stand- 
ards for citizenship," which discussed, among other things, the re-education of the 
older adjudicators "to be more liberal." These two drafts were produced by Vice 
President Gore's office, indicating that they may not have made their way to the 
President. The third draft, however, was produced by the White House. Hand- 
written on the top of the first page is: "Monday am brief of CisnerosATP/Pres." (see 
attachment 32). 

Ms. Kamarck prepared a memo to the Vice President on April 4 to brief him on 
INS progress prior to a lunch with the President. The memo begins, "As you know, 
following on the assignment from the President to look into the citizenship backlog, 
I sent Doug Farbrother on the road to each of the offices where the backlog was 
most severe." There appears to be no question, in light of this memo, that it was 
the President who provided the impetus for Mr. Farbrother's frenetic involvement 
in the naturalization program beginning in early 1996, even though he reports to 
the Vice President (see attachment 33). 

An April 24, 1996 letter from the Southern California I.A.F. (Industrial Areas 
Foundation) Network shows that Ms. Kamarck was also instrumental in "re-engi- 
neering" the naturalization process, at least in Los Angeles. The letter states that 
"nationally some 800,000 [immigrants] will become citizens in time for the election" 
(see attachment 34). 

"re-engineering" or "nats-r-us"? 

On May 1, 1996, INS Associate Commissioner for Examinations Louis Crocetti an- 
nounced in a memo to all field offices that the "new ideas and innovative proce- 
dures" that were tested at CUSA sites with "remarkable results," were to be ex- 
panded Servicewide to all offices. The memo stated that "most of the action items 
can be implemented immediately. Others that have long-term effects may take 
longer to implement." Attached to the memo was an explanation of "Naturalization 


Process Streamlining Initiatives." According to the implementation dates on the 
Summary Chart, all the new initiatives should be effect now (Oct. 1996 — see attach- 
ment 35). 

There is much of interest in this report, particularly in light of the fact that the 
American people, to say nothing of our elected representatives, were totally unaware 
that the naturalization process and requirements were being radically revised. Of 
special interest to this discussion, however, is the fact that page two of the "AppUca- 
tion" section says that "the revised Form N-400 will * * * include data collection 
for voter registration." 

As the nationwide expansion of these "Streamlining Initiatives" is predicated on 
the "remarkable results" of the pilots in the CUSA cities, a brief look at those result 
is warranted. 


Temporary workers comprised most of the additional personnel for CUSA. Some 
900 temporary adjudicators and clerical workers were hired by INS to accomplish 
the goal of naturalizing over a million people in fiscal year 1996. As of June 1996, 
the Inspector General was investigating the training standards for these temporary 
workers, along with those workers who were detailed from other agencies or offices. 

Volunteer workers were also utilized by many district offices. These volunteers in- 
cluded members of CBOs, family members of INS employees, and, in at least one 
case, legal permanent residents. These volunteers performed clerical duties, includ- 
ing filing, mailed naturalization certificates, and collected Alien Registration Cards 
and distributed naturalization certificates at citizenship ceremonies, among other 
things. Attorney General Reno directed her staff to find out "what INS is doing to 
use volunteers" in the naturalization program. President Clinton and/or Vice Presi- 
dent Gore asked HUD Secretary Cisneros "whether qualified volunteers could be 
generated to assist the INS in naturalization activities." Secretary Cisneros an- 
swered affirmatively by providing a proposal from the Southern California Indus- 
trial Areas Foundation Network's Active Citizenship Campaign. Apparently none of 
these people was aware that it is a violation of Federal law for a government agency 
to use volunteers to perform duties that are normally performed by agency person- 
nel, as it constitutes an unauthorized augmentation of the agency appropriation. 
This was pointed out in a memo from INS Headquarters Counsel to Regional Direc- 
tor (see attachment 36). However, as of this weekend, INS employees with whom 
I spoke say that volunteers continue to be used. 


A February 1994 report from the Inspector General found that 5.4 percent of 
aliens submitting applications for benefits had an arrest record. The top reasons for 
arrest were immigration violations/deportation proceedings (32 percent), assault^bat- 
tery/rape (19 percent), theft/robbery/burglary (18 percent) and drug possession/dis- 
tribution (10 percent). Rather than investing some of the CUSA funding in elec- 
tronic fingerprint scanners, which can provide a hit almost instantly, the "stream- 
lined" naturalization process requires fingerprint cards to be mailed to the FBI on 
a daily basis. On March 29, 1996, however, the FBI did a sampling of receipts from 
20 INS offices. Over 60 percent of the fingerprint cards received from Los Angeles 
had been at the Los Angeles office for more than 30 days before they were submit- 
ted. For the Ne^v York City office, 90 percent had been at the office for more than 
30 days. As an INS employee wrote in an email on the subject: "It would seem the 
problem is not the FBI, and they know it." 

In June 1996, the Vermont Service Center (VSC) sent a shipment of fingerprint 
cards that should have gone to the FBI to the New York City office, instead. Al- 
though District Offices are supposed to be notified daily of FBI hits, several boxes 
of positive hits sat around at the VSC for some time before being mailed to New 
York City. 

As of June 20, 1996, NACS had ongoing problems relating to the fingerprint 
checks and another sweep of the system to start the 60-day clock was being ordered. 
Despite the variety of problems with fingerprint checks, a Headquarters meeting re- 
port noted that Adjudicators were only waiting 45 days (instead of 60) for FBI hits 
(see attachment 37). 

E-mail from July 17, 1996 notes that some fingerprint cards are being routed for 
filing before even being sent to the FBI, while "positive hit" Usts from the Nebraska 
Service Center are arriving at District Offices after the interviews have been sched- 



A number of INS employees testified, under oath, before the Subcommittee on Na- 
tional Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice of the House Government 
Reform and Oversight Committee on September 24, 1996. They testified that Adju- 
dications Officers feel pressured by their supervisors to "approve, approve, approve;" 
that good moral character standards are being ignored; that representatives of 
CBOs complain to supervisors about adjudicators who continue or deny applications, 
and that sometimes those adjudicators are removed from their duties; that adjudica- 
tors who go on outreach interviews have to provide copies of their tally sheets 
(showing approvals, denials and continueds) to the CBO representatives; that adju- 
dicators have been told by their supervisors that the are not IRS agents and so 
shouldn't concern themselves with possible tax fraud even though that would violate 
good moral character. These employees pointed out that, while the simple fact than 
an applicant has a criminal record does not automatically make him or her ineli- 
gible for natiiralization, the fact that he or she lied on the application does. Lying 
on the application is inconsistent with good moral character and so should maike an 
applicant ineUgible for citizenship for five years. 

Each of these INS employees came forward knowing that he or she was risking 
his or her job or other forms of retaliation against whistle-blowers. A popular slogan 
among INS employees is "no good deed goes unpunished." When asked why they 
came forward, their answers included: "Because I know there is right and wrong;" 
"We are sworn to uphold the law;" and "Out of a sense of responsibility." These peo- 
ple, and the thousands of other INS employees like them, are the true heroes of 
INS. They should be rewarded for their honesty and their integrity, but instead, 
they are afraid for their jobs. 

Following the House hearing, a letter was sent to the Washington Times by the 
Dallas District Director, who referred to one of these employees as a "disgruntled 
employee" with a "personal agenda." He was referring to Neil Jacobs, the Assistant 
District Director for Investigations in Dallas, who testified that, of approximately 
25,000 applications for citizenship that were processed recently in Dallas, not a sin- 
gle referral was made to the Investigations unit to investigate a fingerprint hit, good 
moral character, application fraud or testing fraud. 

What the District Director failed to mention about Mr. Jacobs in his letter is that 
this "disgruntled employee" was, ironically, awarded the 1995 Hammer Award for 
Reinventing Government by Vice President Gore for creating the much-touted "Op- 
eration Jobs" initiative. (For the record, Mr. Jacobs also has been presented with 
the 1995 Ford Foundation Award for Innovations in American Government, an INS 
award for Bravery Above and Beyond the Call of Duty in 1983, INS Outstanding 
Performance Ratings every year from 1981 through 1992 and 1994 and 1995, and 
INS Special Achievement Awards in 1975, 1976, 1978, 1985 and 1994.) 

The naturalization process, as it now stands, is far different from the one envi- 
sioned in our law. While the initial goals of Commissioner Meissner's INS may have 
been laudable, it is clear now that expediency won out over integrity. Had the new 
system's designers been committed to efficiency and integrity, different choices 
would have been made. Instead of approaching naturalization streamlining in a 
thoughtful and responsible way, changes were made haphazardly with only an eye 
toward increasing the numbers of successful appUcations. For example, the 60-day 
waiting period for the fingerprint checks could have been eUminated entirely, and 
the process made less labor intensive, had some of the CUSA funding been used to 
install electronic fingerprint devices in INS offices. Instead, the pre-existing prob- 
lems were compounded and the result was the granting of our nation's most prized 
benefit, citizenship, to criminals. The naturalization system has been compromised, 
not only in the eyes of INS employees who now refer to it either as the "Jifly Lube 
Program" or "Nats-R-Us." but also in the eyes of Americans — native bom and natu- 
ralized. The forces behind these changes have done an egregious disservice to their 



Naturalization Chronology 

Prepared by the Center for Immigration Studies 

FY 1990: N-400 appUcations pending at start of FY: 172,601 
N-400 applications received: 233,843 

FY 1991: N-400 appUcations pending at sUrt of FY: 213,843 
N-400 applications received: 206,668 

July 1991: -Final rule on requirements for English Language, American History and Civics, 
Standardized Naturalization Testing by outside entities is published in the Federal 

FY 1992: N-400 appUcations pending at start of FY: 115,181 
N-400 appUcations received: 342,238 

Oct. 1991: -INS authorizes Educational Testing Service (ETS) to administer standardized tests. 

FY 1993: N-400 appUcations pending at start of FY: 199,358 
N-400 appUcations received: 521,866 

Nov. 1992: -INS authorizes Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS) to 

administer standardized tests. 
May 1993: -Skip ToUifson, Senior Immigration Examiner, Headquarters, Adjudications, is listed as 

the national contact for information on test sites, including "site additions and 

July 1993: -INS authorizes Southeast College to administer standardized tests. 

FY 1994: N-400 appUcations pending at start of FY: 269,192 
N-400 appUcations received: 543,353 

-The first aUens legaUzed under the 1986 IRCA amnesty become eUgible for 
naturalization this FY. 

-Debate over CaUfornia's Proposition 187 heats up toward the end of this FY. 
Oct. 1993: -Doris Meissner is sworn in as INS Commissioner; at her confirmation hearing she 
states that she intends for the INS to be "much more active... where naturalization is 
June 1994: -An INS naturalization woiic group conducts a survey on ways to streamline the 

naturalization process. 
July 1994: -Naturalization Assistance Services (NAS) submits proposal for authorization to 

administer standardized tests. 
Aug. 1994: -INS authorizes NAS to administer standardized tests. 

-Skip ToUifstn is still national point of contact. 
Sept 1994: -Daniel Solis, President and Executive Director of the United Neighborhood 
Organization of Chicago G^NO), meete President Clinton at a Democratic fundraiser in 
Chicago and discusses naturalization as a way to increase the number of Democratic 



FY 1995: N-400 applications pending at start of FY: 314,236 

N-400 applications received: 1,056,981* 

-Legislative welfare reform proposals examine cutting benefits to non-citizens. 
Oct. 1994: -INS authorizes Marich Associates to administer standardizes tests. 

-An Immigration Intelligence Officer finds evidence of testing fraud by an ETS affiliate 

in Ranch Cordova, CA. 
Nov. 1994: -California's Proposition 187 passes by a wide majority and is then blocked by the 

Dec. 1994: -INS Executive Associate Commissioner Robert Bach distributes to field offices a 

memo soliciting comments on a proposal originating from the June 1994 streamlining 

survey to waive personal naturalization interviews for selected categories of aliens. 

-An investigation into an ETS testing site in Fort Lauderdale, PL is initiated following 

allegations of fraud. 
Jan. 1995: -INS Headquarters begins work on a reprogramming request for naturalization. 
April 1995: -Naturalization is identified as a "major reinvention effort." 

-INS contracts with a management consulting firm, PRC, to work with a team of 20 

INS staff to "re-engineer" the naturalization process. 

-INS submits its naturalization reprogramming request to the Appropriations Committees 

in Congress. 

-INS examiners find evidence of testing fraud by NAS and Marich affiliates in Texas. 
May 1995: -INS and PRC produce the results of their four-week study in a publication called 

Results in 30 Days: Re-Engineering the Naturalization Process. 

-Evidence of testing fraud by a Marich affiliate in Amarillo, TX is discovered. 
June 1995: -Congress approves naturalization reprogramming request. 

-INS examiners in Dallas, TX document a pattern of testing fraud by NAS and Marich 

affiliates and ask that INS Headquarters, which has by this time been informed of the 

problem, take action against Marich. * 

-Commissioner Meissner requests that naturalization be designated as a formal 

Reinvention Lab by Vice President Gore's National Performance Review (NPR). 
July 1995: -The Office of Cabinet Affairs at the White House informs INS Executive Associate 

Commissioner Robert Bach, in answer to his inquiry, that there are a number of 

potential legal problems with the President writing personalized letters to all newly- 
naturalized citizens. 

-A local Sheriffs Office reports to INS that testing fraud is being committed by a 

Marich affiliate based in Liberal, KS and testing in Perryton, TX. 

-ETS suspends an affihate in Philadelphia, PA. 

-INS finds evidence of testing fraud by an NAS affiliate in Ohio. 
Aug. 1 995: -Associate Commissioner for Examinations Louis Crocetti notifies District Directors that 

the White House has established distribution of the President's Congratulations letter to 

all newly-naturalized citizens as a "priority." 

-INS begins work on a second naturalization reprogramming request 

* Untfl July 1995, INS daU on N-400 indnded only those appUcationi logged Into INS daubases as of the specified 
date. Beginning in Jnly 1995, INS began Incloding aU applications received, Inclnding those not entered Into the 


-David Rosenberg is to be the Naturalization Re-Engineering Project Coordinator. 
-"Citizenship USA" (CUSA) is unveiled; to be focussed on the five cities with the 
largest numbers of pending N-400s: Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Chicago 
and Miami. 
Sept 1995: -Daniel Solis of UNO sends a letter to First Lady Hillary Clinton to explain the 
potential of naturalization to produce new Democratic voters. 
-Naturalization is approved as an NPR Reinvention Lab; Mr. Rosenberg is the point of 

-Commissioner Meissner sends the Executive Summary of the PRB re-engineering 
report to field offices for comment 

FY 1996: N-400 applications pending at start of FY: 705,712 + 96,774 unentered 
N-400 applications received: 1,160,000 

Oct 1995: -INS convenes a working group to identify and solve the problems with the 

Naturalization Automated Case System (NACS - the naturalization database). 

-INS authorizes American College Testing (ACT) to administer standardized tests. 

-INS instructs field offices that the "inability [of a naturalization applicant with a test 

certification fix)m an outside entity] to speak English may not be die sole reason" for 

determining that there was fraud in the testing. 

-NAS suspends an affiliate in Sacramento, CA. 
Nov. 1995: -INS submits second naturalization reprogramming request to Appropriations 

Committees in Congress. 

-Testing fraud is discovered at an NAS affiliate in Minneapolis-St Paul, MN. 

-Testing fraud is discovered at an unlicensed testing center in Philadelphia, PA. 

-Dallas INS office submits recommendations to reduce fraud by testing entities. 

-NAS suspends an affiliate in Richardson, TX for improperly conducting tests in 

Boston, MA and Denver, CO. 

-Afrer seeing a television broadcast documenting testing fraud at the NAS affiliate in 

St Paul, INS suspends NAS. 
Dec. 1995: -NAS lawyers threaten to file federal suit unless INS reinstates NAS. 

-INS and NAS sign a stipulated settlement agreement and NAS is reinstated. 

-At Executive Associate Commissioner AleinikofPs request, INS Headquarters convenes 

working group to establish guidelines for investigating testing entities. 
Jan. 1996: -Congress approves second reprogramming request. 

-Marich suspends an affiliate in Bronx, NY. 

-An investigation initiated by an INS District Office results in the arrest and prosecution 

for testing fraud of four people at an NAS affiliate in Honolulu, HI. 

-INS instructs NAS to suspend the Honolulu affiliate. 
Feb. 1996: -"Direct Mail" of N-400s to Service Centers for all CUSA cities begins. 

-Mr. Rosenberg requests help from Vice President Gore's Office in acquiring additional 

personnel, ceremony space and funding for CUSA. 

-Doug Farbrother from Vice President Gore's office, along with other NPR staff, 

become increasingly involved in CUSA. 

-The New York Immigrant Coalition sends recommendations to INS on how to lessen 

fraud by testing entities. 

-INS Headquarters discusses designating a contact person to track testing entity 

violations so that INS will have a record of them in case of litigation. 


-INS Office of Internal Audit is cooperating with the DOJ Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) on an investigation into testing fraud. 

-Testing fraud is suspected in Tucson, AZ, but the examiner is told to approve 

naturalization anyway. 

•Marich suspends an affiliate in Queens, NY and fraud is suspected at another affiliate 

in Brooklyn. 

-INS recommends that testing entities be allowed to publish a list of 1 SO test questions 

as a study guide for applicants. 
March 1996: -Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Farbrother, along with other INS and NPR staff, begin visiting 

CUSA cities as part of a two-week review of CUSA's effectiveness. 

-Mr. Farbrother emails himself a reminder to talk to INS and DOJ security about 

speeding up hiring by bringing on new hires while their background checks are being 

done, instead of waiting for them to be finished. 

-INS Regional Offices are notified of a ""White House' initiative to further enhance and 

accelerate" naturalization by, among other things, keeping CUSA offices open for 

extended hours and on weekends. 

-Mr. Farbrother asks INS Deputy Commissioner Chris Sale (or Commissioner Meissner) 

to delegate full authority to District Directors to "waive INS rules and regulations" in 

order to speed up naturalization. 

-Deputy Commissioner Sale aimounces that staffing for CUSA would be increased by 

20 percent, and delegates full authority over the funds and hiring to District Directors 

in CUSA cities. 

-Following the armouncement of a 20 percent increase in CUSA staff, INS Headquarters 

increases the "production goals" for the CUSA cities by almost 40 percent (from 

588,313 to 814,255 N-400 completions). 

-INS Headquarters staff pass on via email a message from Commissioner Meissner 

regarding a promise she made to Rahm Emanuel, Assistant to the President, to provide 

periodic updates on the progress of CUSA to Emanuel, Attorney General Reno, Chief 

of Staff Leon Panetta, Vice President Gore and others in the White House. 

-White House aide Harold Ickes receives a memo assuring him that the author has 

"reviewed the process of voter registration in naturalization ceremonies" and "in every 

instance in which a new citizen is sworn in, the new citizen receives a packet from 

I.N.S. which includes a voter registration mail in card." 

-Mr. Farbrother complains to one of the Vice President's staff that some CUSA offices 

are "still getting way too much interference from headquarters" with regard to getting 

adequate staffing. 
April 1996: -NAS cancels affiliates in New Yoiic, NY, Brooklyn, NY, Houston, TX and San Bruno, 


-INS sends a memo to field offices detailing guidelines on investigating testing fi^ud. 

-INS Headquarters is notified that the television program "20/20" is investigating NAS 

testing fi^ud. 
May 1996: -Mr. Crocetti notifies District Directors that the streamlined naturalization process is to 

expanded fix)m the CUSA cities to all offices, effectively immediately (unless 

regulations still need to be developed). 

-Marich terminates a Staten Island, NY testing cite. 

-Executive Associate Commissioners Aleinikoff and Slattery send field offices 

guidelines on conducting unannounced on-site inspections of testing facilities. 


June 1996: —'10110" interviews Mr. AleinikofT about naturalization and testing fraud. 

-INS sends a letter to the testing entities advising them that District Offices may 

conduct unannounced on-site inspections, and laying out what they will be looking for. 

-An email from a Headquarters Ethics Officer indicates that Mr. Aleinikoff wants Skip 

Tollifson's actions investigated, by the officer is unsure whether INS or DOJ-OIG 

should "commence" the investigation. 

-INS is investigating two testing sites in San Francisco. 

-NAS cancels its contract with the affiliate in Dallas, TX that was featured in the 

"20/20" story. 

-INS issues NAS a Notice of Intent to Suspend. 

-INS Headquarters Counsel issues a memo instructing Executive Associate 

Commissioner Slattery that it is a violation of Federal law for INS offices to use 

volunteers to perform duties normally performed by INS personnel. 

July 1996: -INS Headquarters tells field offices that they are to continue accepting certificates from 

NAS affiUates until they hear otherwise. 

Sept 1996: -Mass naturalization ceremonies are held around the country, including one at Soldier 
Field in Chicago in which INS employees are unable to control the crowd long enough 
to hand out all the naturalization certificates and collect the green cards (estimated to 
have up to a $30,000 street value). 

-The Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice of 
the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee convenes two hearings on 
natiu^ization after requesting/subpoenaing over 30,000 documents from the INS, the 
White House and the Vice President's Office. 




Federml Re^Ur / VoL SO. No. 12S / FrijUy. lune 28. 1991 / Nodcet 

ll(3)-00048 — 

Impoft aad Export Act la *''~'Minit 
t«lthtil]«a.Cod*ofFt<lanl . . . 
RtfvUtlea* I UlLtt Um *bov« flinb 
tha bwie out of oealroa«d tabtuaea 
UittdtboT*. ■ ■ 


DipaljrAmltlaiilAdaUHittnler. OffJetef 
D Innla m CcoUoL Drug Enforcmnmat 
(FK Doc tl-t54M F1M »-9-«: «:4S tm| 

Immlgratien and Natunttzitiofl . 

IINS N& IZTVtIl '. . ■ . \ \j', 

CoflBah Lingiii j^t Aiworican Hl^lofy* 
'andCMca,Standardixatf '■■«■■- 
NaturaBatJonTMf. ; 

AQCHCv: lauslfntbo tad Natanlizatloa 

Scrvfe*. Juidea. 

•cnwe NoUca o( prograBL 

suMMAtntTlialmffligratloaaad - 
Natunllzadoa Scrvlet (Sctvtce) U 
pgnuiai tfaa development aad 
Implemeatadon of a itandardized teat 
for aalanlizadoa appUeasta ai aa 
altenativa Dcaoj of mecdai certala 
requiitmenta for aatunlizadoa aa 
United State* Qdzcna. Thla aodoa U to 
request written propotala from capable 
entlllei who are iateietted la 
partidpatlnf in thla protraia. The 
Service expect! the itandatdlzad test ' 
will facilitate tha aaturallzadoQ of - 
persona who aii^l be otherwise 
hesltaat to apply for aaturallsadoa. 
DATU: Wrlttea proposal* £roa pardea 
laterested ia developlai sad . 
ada^ilstertnf aa altemativa testtag 
process based oa the ehteila ia tha 
supplemaatary iaformadoa win b« • 
acoeptadoa or after IaaeZB.U01;. ■ 
AaoMaso: Written propeaali *hoaU 
be laaUed la trtplleata to Adjadlcatlaaa 
Dtvlaloa. Isualgtatloa aad 
Natatalixadoa Scrylca..42S I Stroet 
NW. room 7223, WaaUagioa; OCasaa, 
.row mmnmn ■^cwmTion obwriicp ' 
Stella }artaa,SaaterImaU|tatloa.'?. - 

Natarallatled Serviea; «2S t StiMt- : ' 
NW. WaaUagtoa. DC aossi'TabphaM:' 

, (2(B) si4-sn«. .. . ■ -.,''_ :-; i : ;.." -.: ; -.-. 
' mtmstmitun MMmtATtewTbA.' .' 
laaliratiea aad NadoaalUjr Act (Act).- ' 
prevldea tat the aatonlhaUea'eleaftaia 
qualified allaar la Oaitad Slated > ■'- ■ -^ ' 
citizaaahip. Seedoa SU of th4 Act ■' 
providea la penbaat part that .'■ : 
appUeaata fat oattarilbatiea'mittt - 
daowDstrateaattadsntaadiaJieC '. 
ordiaaiy EagUsh Utetaey aad • 

VaowtedfeaadaadentandlMofthe . 
Uatoc7aad(ocmof|ovcraB»Btofthe - 
Ualtad State*. The taualfradea Refbna 
aad Ceatroi Act of 1988 (IRCA) ttqnlrcd 
tha Sanriea lo'implaaeata siml]ar,test_ 
for appUcaata for penBanent resldenfe" 
iiaderaaedea248aoftheAet - 
la'TaspeasatD a public aotlee 
pobliahad la tha Fadaiil Raglstar oa fair 
13. ISSO (U FR 288H), to aaaounee the 
Swvtea'aceaaldctatieaof '- ' 
InplaBaatadoa of a staadardlxed *'* 
Enillah Laafaaia/QlSxcaship test for 
aatataliziadoopiirpo*ea,atolalofll ' 
cooisaata were received from both - 

' ouisida' aad iaalde the Service. Upon' ' 
tevlaw aad carafnl eoafidaritioa of ' 

. lliju Qogmfoti^ t}^ foQowlna chaaaea ' 
«rar* made to darlAr aad esqwad oa the 
salecdoA criteria wUch appeared la . ' 
draft fbrm la the FadaolRatistatoa.^ - 
CMtislea (S) has beea amended to 
dariiy ^t tha "apptnral'of iadlTidaal . 
test tesnlti relates to the maaaer ia 
whldh the results are traasmlttcd to the . 

CHtertoa (8) has beea aaicnded to 
eaabia a tesdag eadty capable of - 
■dBtnliteriag a test bi nipra thaa one ■ 
state, or oparadai wllfaia or under the 
snpervisloa of a poblic school system, to 
be approved la admialster the ' 
staadardlxed teat ' 

Critatloa (8) has beea smrndud to ■ 
ladnde tfaa t e quliem eat that the lestlnf 
endty provide the a^Ueant with 
evidestte of havtst taken the test If 
result* are not provided the same day as 
the teat The results provided to the 
Servtee la ladl vidua! cases related only 
tothaaeperseaspasiinf thetestThe . 
Sendee will aot be advtaed of the 
Ideaddes of tho«* penoaa who do not 
paaa tha test aad ^flure of this Jest will 
nave ao affect oa a pcnoa'a abUlly to _. 
retake thla altetaadve test or be ' 
separately teetad by a SenrloeoIScer.' - 

Six **»^^^***'T rM{oested 
riaHflcadon of what would ooasdluta 
baud or adsrapiesealadaa oa the part of 
the aa^lcaat er lestiag afeaey aad how 
fraud weald be detetmlaed We have 
detecBlaad that It would be 
laappteprlata to spader ia advaaea -:.- 

- what spedfle type e( aedea* would . '- 
eeasdtBta fraoA aa tfaU weuU'ba *eea ■ 
aa Ualttat the av^ority of^ Saryiea. 
■ TWa«aameBtaf« jvlabea elarifieatMa 
-aatetheeeectafefthawiltteapectioa . 

■ of the teat aa.two saateaoea ware Mac 

' reaubed to bt wiitia&«* opposed 10 ' ^ 
oa^ eaa tequlied foe the test mdar ■-'. ; 
legalicattad. Whlla approval of sceriaa '. -^ 

' methodawllIhabaaednpaaliidMdual'' 

' propoaal* nbmlttad. It la bteaded that - 
the eppUeaat must pass oaeee of the - 

Oaa eomawdter requested that Q|e'- 
test aaswera be teed to the appUeant ia 

addidoa to the quesdoos. However, we 
have dstenalaed that the oaly way to 
ede<iuately test the apolleaars abiUty to 
read, would be If he/she made the .' 
choice of the aaswen beaed npoa what 
I* read, aol what la alae lead to him/her. 
Also the long tana late|iity of the lest 
requires that there be ae qnesdoa.of the 
tutor having Infhiancad the aaawer* of 
tl>e appUeaat by. the maaaer la which, 
the answer* are read, whether .. . 
Intcadonal or aot 

. Fhre ooamieaters re^ueatad that the 
test either be aot lestrided to school 
environments or reeoested that ' 
voluntary ageades be elowed to 
provide the test The "eavirmawnr ia 
which tte test Is givea Is aot restricted 
nadsr the criteria, but wiU be a factor to 
be oonsldersd la the approval of a 
tesdag eadly. u It rdbtea to tha security 
of the test Also, Um l e quli i eui aat la 
criterioa (6] that tha lestiag eadty have 
maaagemeat eoaHel of tfaa tesd^i site, 
persoaael aad snppUea. doaa aot 
preclude die testiag eatlly froa 
contraedng spedlte serrloe* from 
various tool eaddaa provided that 
control and ovcrsii^ are mitntaiTltdi 

Four oommeatan Indic ated eoaectn 
cither for the amotmt of the fee or 
reimbursement for local vdimtary 
agende*. Tha Serrloe win have ao 
Wwaw^a] liability er stake la the 
tdmlnlslradoa i^ aay test The Service's 
approval of the fee Is solely to lasore the 
reasonableness of the fees charged. 

One commeater raised die Issue of the 
length of daie for which test results 
would be valid. Aa appUeant for 
oaturalizadoa must estebllsh eligibility 
under seedoa 912 at the daM of me 
-""»'"»""" oa the 'eppUcadoiL It Is felt 
that one yeer la a leesenable eswnat of 
'UmeiawfalchloooBtSaaalaaeeeplthe ' 
results of a staadardtaad test Therefore, 
the test results wiU be eoasldered valid 
In conaectloe with a Form N-400 
submitted wlthla oaa year of die dite 
the test Is passed 

Any qnaliflod eadly may apply to the ' 
Serrloe for eoeeplaaea aa aa approved 
teedag eatlly. The e^eemeat betweea • . 
ifae Serviee aad tha laadag eadty win be . 
nonflnanrlali Tha Servfae ahafl laear ae, 
w««^w.4»| QabiUly **"i \^*mmAm (^ Qgjtf * 
aapayBaa&leaaraalllyBder'.lfala >' 
' preyam.The Sernea ay aa a to aaeept - 
the lest tesolls from aa ^peeved eadly 
as evideaca of a aatmltraHriw". :. 
ap^eaarsabOliyloraadaadvnita - , 
Eo^aadkaowUdfiaflhaL. \ \ 
' govetaaaai aad hlstaiy of fte Ualted ~ 
Sutae aa required tar eecdda 312 o( the 
Act wbea aaid appOcaat snbmlta aa . 
appUcadea to file a paddea for 
natnralixadoa wllfaia. oee year of— — 
suecesifuOy passing aa approved test. 

<* f C >Ort X T ll%-^ c 



Th* p«M*(« of Ih* approved (eit will 
net bo eeaatrutd u cvldcac* ol obiUty 
to fpofk Cnstiih. 


(xunpM, Ictu ira 
tad (oe^ted Vt *» 
.tateitlbitlbii . 


' qualiBM i(tl« mttfjini ucney); 
(ZJIlSi vfrlttaa tMt wUlb« - ' ' 

'ooaitradadlaEagUiliuttwienbrTSO] ' 
qnotfon nalti^ciielo* put/iad tot ' 
with two diciitad MatmOH to ba ' 
wiittaaiDEiitlUh.natattwlIlba ' 
eonatraelad w'aa to b( eotnplttad tai bo 
mota'tbta fetty-ffra (45] mlmilca. Tha- ' 

' ta«t qnattioiii and tba dictated ° 
■tatoOaa will ba laad alood la Ei9|3iih 
to tha appUeaatt Iqr a <iaalUIad preclor 
la patfoo. or audio eaiMtta or .video 
tape. Th» aaiwrcn wHl act be read to 
tlia.appUeaata,' .- . 

(3) na tatt qoatlioai tad loaiinC 
ttaadiudf for teat (oorca will ba ■ 
appravad bj^tha Sairlca. Tba tcoiiaf 
■tandatdmut prorida tbatiba aiialmaa 
paaalBtiooraMirthamnlltlpUefaoloa - 
quaattoaawill bi aot IcH tbta eo 
pcraant^Tlia loailBf itaadard mnit alto 
pravtda for lattiiaetotT oomplctioa of - 
oaa of 4ha two MBtcaeei. The tctt 
quatttoBa or (eoriag i taadardi will not 
ba diaaftd by tha taitiaf entity nalesa 
approved or olraetad by the Sarviea. The 
teit tanlla nbmlttad tqr appllcaat* to 
tha Satvica an sot valid untU verified 
by tha£arvle#:.Tha teiting cotity onit 
develop, aad tha Service anut ooaear la 
aay.fonaof electroaieornuaual . 
trtjufaraf taet remit data boo the 
eaUty to the Secvlca. 

(4) The oonteat of the teit queetlona, 
with tha axcapttoa of cuncnt political 
offlca holder*, moet came from the lateet 
edltloa of the Sarvioe'e Fcda«l 
adxauhlp Tax&ook Sailea. Only tba 
M-2S7. M-3ao. M-2n aad EadUh aa a 
Seooad Uafaa«a Textbook Vaniaaa 
(M-SOZ. M-a03.M.W4) are to ba a*ad^ 
Thata taxtbooka can be piir^atad boa 
tha Ua GovaxBSMBt Pllatlui OSoa* 

(51 TaetlBi aatttiaa aia laqoiiad to - 
field teat tha exaadaalioB. la 
cooperaiigq with dM Service, ^rior to • 
In plei^ ealadogiTha laathti eadty thall 
notl^tha8arv|caeftbaopeniB|o(i ' ■ 
new alia or doatai of a cita' wlihia laa' 
boaiDaaa day* of aodi aetioa. 

(6) Tha taatiaf adty moat ha capable 
of admiidatatiai tha axamlaatlon hi 
mota'.thaa one itato (to tadnda V3. '"- 

Virpa Island«; CutsL and Puerto lUoo)^ - 
or epcnto within or under iho . - 
•upervitlon of a public s^ool-oystcm. la 
(dininiitcring the examlaadda tb.e entity 
Duit have maaafcaieateDntral oyer the ■. 
ttetlaf ichadul*, taet locadoa: 

authority over t«*tia(BarMimaL aad ' . 
ictpooaibiUty for aaadtdaappUea."- •> ' 
Service approval eaaoot be traqrfanvd 
to aa nsapproved eatlly lor . .'■ ;. 
idfflIai(tratloaoftaata.naiaaiiag ; .° 
entity n^oat epaun^ if u ji w i i i r iautly ' t ■ ■' 
pi^v^dlaf teat prapafattaa batniedaa,- . 
that iaat tUadaidt are tUlellyfiaOowad; 
Tha fc« cfaarMii wlU be datanplnad by 
the approved antiiy with Im; '- ' - 7 
coacBRtaca d tha-Saivloa.'lBatUKGalloft ' 
. of tha f^.tiaoQatam^ b^ tabatlttad .; . 
with <sy propoaaL If tht appUeiat^Ula 
thalaathaor^willbafivn^.. . 
oppoftBaity to rateat.oaa t&M.'al B9 - < : 
addlUasal coat*. Tha rataatihall ba •' 
vtriatiasofthalalttaltaat' -'.-:' .'''' - 

(TJjOaServloawlllBiaiBtiL&al^of. ' 
tppreradlaatiataatlilaaa^wniQak^ ' 
ncfa llstlag avallabia la thC^nUle jopaa 
teqnert. Tha icttial aadty f( ic^Uivd io . 
provide raaaoaabia poblie aat5aa,of the' 
teit locatloa aad artiadtila. Al Uaat .. 
Sflaca day* prior to tha begtaalat of. 
etd aoath. tha tettiaa aatily ihu 
provide the Service with ateport of tha 
•dwdnled teat dataa by leeatiaa for &• 
conlaf BSOBtiL - ' ■ '; .~v 

(8)Tlia approved tatlag esUtyJa'. - 
mponalbia for aooring the axamlnatlaa 
and ihall provide the rmaltt to tha. -. 
applicant and tha Sanrloe by&a ' 
liftaealh boalneaa day from (hj dateof 
tha teat ]! .eat reaulta are aol provided 
to the appllcaat oa tha day'of tha'tcat a 
receipt or othct evidence of having 
taken the taat will ba provided. 

(S) The tcattng aatlty ahafl-piovlda teat 
Mcsrity and taat iatasity aabiact to , 
review aad approval by tha Servlca. . 

(10) Tha taadai aatlty win b« ' 
respmilbla for vari^iai the idaaUty of 
the peraoa taldat tha teat' ' - . - 

(11) The Service raaarvaa. withont - 
aolica, the rffht of oaaita lanaetioa'te 
detemlaa tha coatiaBed raaUablllty aad 
Integrity of tha teat and laatini . 

(13) The iMling entity ouit provide 
(h« Scnrioe with quanuiy ra>na(emeot 
report* throughout panlcipailoa la the. - 
program. Tba report* ihall ladade, but 
are not limited to, oicnihly iiatUtica by 

. a (eating atta on tlie mimber of ' . - 
appUeaal* who take die tcet-aad &a - - 
Btuaber-ofperaoaawlwpaaaaadfalL- - 

■ '. b«ii*>prOji."li»C ■ 1 ,1 .."v ■' - ■ 
C«DaMcN«i7.' •.'■ . •.vLT,"".-' 

Notan(l*eUaaS*r>riet.' ■,.'■',.■ 
_ (ntDocn-UMned»-9-tt:i-4Saa) ■' 
° aaijHa loaa Mi^tMi 


(U) Tha Service taaervaa tha right to 
famova aa sidty from tha approved . 
taglatar for good eaaaa. The taatiat- 
enttty will ba Botlliid la wridag of it* 
lejuuial from the approved raglataiv and 
Bmat oaaaa ■^f»<«»* tiffB Immadlalaly 
upoB.focetet of aacB notfo^ No^appaal . 
Uaa from tao dadaioQ looBiiv*, boi a 
laqaaat for taonnililaraaoB aiay bo °. . 
aatartalaad by the Aaalataat . 
. Comadaalaaarfor AdJadleatioBa, , . .', : 
ExamiaatiQaa Braack. CaalralOfltei. 
\Vaahtaigton.DC ' v, ■..•-•. .V.:, •' 


Owicia.of.tho Sowttwy 

AflO ft cy nOcordkaaplnfl/Raportinfl 
Ra^iAwMfits Under Ravlaw by ttia 
Offle«'ef Hanagcmant and Budget 

BaiAgnwad * 

ThaOepaitBieatofLabor,lacaiTytBg '. 
oat ila reapoBalbtUttet tmder tha - 
Paperworic lUdaedoa Act (44 U.S.C - .- ..i 
Cbaptar S5)i ooaaidar* ooBBBCBta-oa iIm 
reporting aad reoordkaeplag' * " * 
l e qulmu eata that wiO affect tha pobUc- :- 

liat ofSaeerdkaapiag/Ilepordag ,' , ; 
Raqabeaaala Uadar Raview' 

A* B8oeaaary,.tha Deparlmeat of - 
LabarVal publlih a lUt of th* Agency 
leuuiilkacplng/icpuillug reqoiRfflcnta * 
under review by tha Office of 
Maaagemaat aad Budget (OMB) liaca 
the Iaat lift waa pobUihed. The li«t will 
have all eatriea groitped lata oew - 
collectiea*, raviaioBi, czteaiiona. or ' - 
relaatatem*Bta.TheDepattDental ' 
Qearaaoa Office wid, npon raqocat b* 
eble tin adviaa mambcn of the public of 
the natBra of the particular tnbmitiloB - 
they era ialarcaled la. Each eatiy laay.' . . 
""■««<" tha foUowiog lafonaatlon: 

Tha Agocy of tha Department Jtsoing 
thla reoniikaeping/repating . 

The title of the recordkeeping/ 
l e poitlii g raqBh amant i 

Tba OMB aad Aaeaey Identj fl cadoa 
numban.ifeppUcawA . . 

Howohaatberaeordkacpiag/ ' .'. ■ 
icpuitlug raqoiiaBMBt la oeeoed ~ • ■■ 

WbewUl ba raqobad to or aaked to 
report or keep racorda. 

Wha&ar email boilaetaea or- 
orgauliauOBa are affartad. 

AaaailBmtaofihatotalBaadMref ' 
hosra Beaded to coiBpIy'witbiha . 
raootdkaeplBg/raportag reqtdrimeatai . ' ■- 
aad tha average .hooa per reepJBad fBt ..' 

Tba BBBibar of (ofma la tha laqoart Mr • 

-V approval. If applIcabIa.U.'\'<:^^«l-'~— ::i.' 







Pr«B*nt*d to: 



423 I Str««t N.H. " ,' ■ 

Washington, DC 20536 

Presented by: 

Naturalization Assistance Services 

2980 Lakeland Highlands Road 

Lakeland, ?L 33803 

July 18, 1994. 


xij^iigcaujiun a»j>-i I'ta^ui oax < .-. _±on sexvice to oeci.^e a tes-in= entity and« 
to develop and administer a standardized test ss an alternative means 
of neeting certain naturalization requirements for naturalization as 
United States citizens. 

Upon approval as a testirf? entity, Katuralizazion Assista.-.ce Services 
will becona a sub-corporation of Right Kay Driving Schools, Inc. The 
principals in Right Way are Paul W. Roberts, rrestdent/Treasurar and 
Julie P. Roberts, vice President/Secretary. 

1) Right Way Driving Schools Inc. is a private institution of 
learning, regulated by the State of Florida as a Driver I.Tiproveaent 
School, and licensed to administer and test applicants in a course of 
study for first-tine drivers that is ret^ired to obtain a Florida 
driver's license. Right Way Driving has developed driving programs for 
the Ndtional Park Service and the Department cf Energy. These programs 
include classroom instruction covering the duzies and rights of 
citizens and how laws are passed and enforced. Tha students nust^ also 
successfully complete a standardized final test. 

2) Naturalization Assistance Services proposes to administer a written- 
test in English, consisting of a twenty (20) question raul-lple choice' 
test and two dictated sentences written in English. The questions and 
dictated sentences will be read aloud in English by a qualified 
proctor. The answers will HOT be read to the applicants, kn alternate 
20 question multiple choice test has been developed for those who fail, 
the test, on the first try and need to re-test. 

3) Students must score at least 60% -on the multiple choice section and 
must correctly write one of the two 'English sentences, which will be 
read aloud to then. 

We understand that the results are not valid until verified by the 
I.N.S. llest result data will be provided to I.K.S. as required by 
manual means using the U.S. Postal Service or any other courier 
service where proof of delivery is required-. 

4) Thd content of all the test questions, with the exception of the 
current political office holders, cane froia the latest edition of the 
I.H.S. Federal; Citizenship Textbook series (K-287, M-289, K-291) 

5) Prior to implementation, the examination will be field tested in 
cooperation with. I.K.s. ' " "t* ' 

r ■ _ '• ■ .*?,- i'- 

' Vr ' ' .•:• ■ ^i ■■■ V 

6) Ha will beVcapabla of conducting tests $ft noret^than one statev 
Initially, wat;>*lll conduct:' testi: in PloridS/and *«x?^s-. He will' have 
control over :thi' testing ScJied^iB, -test l^tion^prociirenent.and- ' 

nanagenent;. hiring: author!^ 5a^r€esting«e^^ arid *?•; 

raspohBibiiity.- for" needediStoppriTM;; Testr^andiVdi' wiir bef strictly. 
??>'o«ed'gIrid4viduBlay»nduetlSarIt^st! prepSratiofiScourses will- not • 
have."7 SS« test: f iler^and; jelipplles ^ ;> ' . 



fee based on the following projected expenses' for testing 1, 
applicants within a 6 nonth period: 

Secretarial (6 month salary) $9,000.00 

Part tine proctors 5i0.00 x 170 hrs $l,700,oo 

Tests and answer sheets $ 600.00 

AdvertisDent $2,000.00 

Test site rental Si, 200.00 

Telephone '$1,500.00 

Administrative support ' $1,000.00 

Office supplies $1,500.00 

Office rental $2,400.00 

TOTAL $20,900.00 

If the applicant fails the test, he or she nay retest one tiae at no 
additional cost. The retest will be a variation of the initial test. 

7. We will provide reasonable notice each conth in regard to the 
following month's schedule through public media advertisements. He 
will notify X.K.S. at least IS days prior to the beginning of each 
month the scheduled test dates and locations for the coning nonth. 

8. He will score the exam and provide results to the applicant and the 
I.N.S. by the fifteenth day fron the test date. A test registration 
receipt will be provided to the applicant as evidence of the applicant 
having taken the exan. We will provide only the names of those that 
successfully complete the test to I.N.S. 

9. Tests and answer sheets will be controlled by pre-assigned numbers. 
All tests and testing material will be locked in a file eaibinet when 
not in use by the test proctors. Test proctors will not leave tests 
or test materials on desks or tables that are out of sight of tlie 
proctor. .Once the test have been scored and recorded, the related 
material will be locked in a file cabinet. While transporting test 
materials to and from the test sight, the proctor will transport the 
material in a locked brief case. 

10. The identity of each applicant will be verifliad by the proctor by 
students photo ID. The only, forms of ID acceptable are those issued 
by any state or rederal goyemaent. 

11. On sight inspection by.'^'.N.'s. is welcomed by Haturalization 
Assistance Services. '«' ' . 

J .-. -' 

, 12. We will proii^de the liHvS.-wlth quarterly reports. These reports 
, will have monthlv stjatistl^V datJailing test loeaiipns, number of 
^ people testing, j^uniier bfv.^ccMsiCuIAinsuccessfuli'^poapletiena. '<•■ 



■rna pursosa oC t^is r.«no is to explain and clarify bob* issues in regards 
to becorain? an approved tcstir.3 entity. NAS i« planning to use hotel 
nieeting rooss in" the cities where we test. These meeting rooms will be in 
high visibility locations so that applicants will be able to find them wit 
little effort. The hotel meeting reoas also previda' a good atDospb'crs for 
proctors, applicants, and those waiting to take th« test. These locations 
will be sxibnitted for approval as soon as I.H.S. taXes action on our 

We will provide a telephone nusber to I.H.S. so that any I.H.S. office or 
officer nay contact a member of our staff in regards to any applicants ' 
paperwork or test results. This phone nusber will not be for the general 
publics tise. 

Prior to the first .test in any city, ya are going tp* notify the local law 
enforcement agency' so that they nay pest a job announcement for part-time 
worJt as test proctors. Prior to tha test dat« we will contact, interview, 
and train the' proctors so that or -subsequent tests in that city, we will 
not need to repeat this process. Wa intend to use off-duty law enforcecent 
officers because they GEKStAIX? neat our standards for employment. The 
proctors will be managed, paid, end trained with tha understanding that 
employment will be on an on-going basis. The duty of a proctor will be to 
make sura applicants do not look on other applicants answer sheets, that r 
notes or books are brought into the test room, that no one telks after the 
test has begun, and other duties to ensure test security. 

Reporting tha test results to ms can be done manually-in other words we" 
could send a typed roster of those applicants that successfully complete 
the test. If a certain computer progran Is used that will make the transfc 
of information easier, we would be Interested in using that method. 

Thara will always be an official from our company at the test site to deal 
with any mai^agement, set-up, or questions that proctors night have. 

Z have enclosed a copy of our license from the State of Florida and also e 
copy of the Florida Oepaztsent of Lav Enforcement background check on ee. 
I was a law enforcement officer for 17 years and my wife Julia was a law 
enforcem4nt officer for approxiaately 10 years. 

Thank-you fro your consideration. 

Paul tf. Roberts 


Author: Frederick H Toumay «e HQCOU 

0«ce: S/13/9S S:02 PM 

Prioricy: Normal 

Receipc Requested 

TO: Rainona L HcGea 

Subject: Re: ABC 20/20 Interview/Skip Tolllfson 

Message Contents 



Earlier this week, wa referred a matter to the 010 
involving allegations against former INS employee Skip 

EmploYeea have suggested to ■"« ^»l^ t Tollifson approved 
MAS, a natural liation eeac^n^ entity even though thev 
did net meet the Service's criteria, failed to properly 
monitor ka5: he was overheard negotiating for, 
employment and has now violated the cost employment, 
restriction laws, and misappropriated foy his own 
commercial use the INS ' slogan, 'Citiienship OSA* . 

When ABC News interviewed Alex Aleinikoff , they raised 
the issue, apparently from a former KAS employee who 
they refxisa to identify, that Tollifson accepted golf 
trips from KAS while still a federal employee. 

Jim Meeker and Cava Olendennlng accepted the referral 
aa informational; they aza willing to conduct an 
investigation only if the INS furnishes soma leads 
beyond the mere allegations. 

Adjudications has Identified approximately 5 people who 
have information regarding Tollifson' s activities and 
are willing to talk. 

In an earlier conversation with Doolnick, he indicated 
that because Tollifson is no longer with the agency, 
that your branch lacks, jurisdiction to investigate. 
Meeker subsequently expressed tha opinion that if 010 
has jurisdiction, so do you. Adjudications is 
sensitive to tha face that Infemation apparently 
continues to b« 'leaked' to Tollifson and they ara 
reluctant to Interrogate his fezvar coworkers. 

Wa anticipate Alax might ba re- Interviewed by ABCtha 
week of OC/17 and h« would like us to take affirmative 
steps to look into this- matter and coonenca an 
investigation. But, I 'aa at a loss as to irtio should 
interview these employees to develop the leads so that 
OIQ can conduct aa invastigatloa; please advise. 

Ramona MeOee, of ny office, is baadllag this matter and 
will be available Friday, OC/14, awaiting your advice. 
Z will be out, but'can be reached at S*S30C if you need 
additional information. 

fted Teumay 


Author: rrederick H Toumay at HQCOU 

C«te: S/7/9S 8:0J AM 

Priority: Normal 

Receipt Requested 

TO: Ramona L McSee 

Subject: Re: Telephone Conversation w/ skip Tolllfson 

.. . Message Contents — ...... 

Ramona : 

As you know, I was out last weeX; I meant to cbec)( with you yesterday 
on what progress had been made. Did you transait a synopsis of what 
has transpired to Jani'ce Rodgers? I didn't see anything on Amicus 
when I checked. 

Call me when you get a chance. 


Reply Separator 

Subject: Telephone Conversation w/ Skip Tolllfsoa 
Author: Raroona L HcGee at BQCOU 
Date: S/6/9S 4:37 PM 


I wanted to make you aware that I had a telephone call today from Skip 
Tolllfsoa on behalf of KAS, again requesting that IHS consider 
appearing with the six entitles oa 30/20. Skip Indicated that KXS is 
really interested in meeting with us to discuss the issue and that 
John Wendell, Geaeral Counsel for KAS, and, Paul Roberts, CBO for HAS, 
want clarification oa their current status .with IMS. This call was In 
direct response to aa earlier call made by Joha Wendell to Janice and 
I regarding the 20/20 Interview and the possibility of Jofaa Wendell 
meeting with us personally to discuss the issue. Z have ny notes froa 
my conversation if you need them. 

I think that INS or DOJ needs to make a d ecisi on fairly qyiicidy oa 
what we wlah eo do about Skip's contacts wiCfl INS and associatloirwith 
MAS. Hopefully, Janice Rodgers has beea able to determine if Skip' s 
actions have violated any post-employment statut es. If not, at a bare 
minimum. I think we need to have a 'cease and desUL'' Utter issued to 
Skip so that he is made aware of what he can and cannot do based » 
his prior employment wita ms. . . .• — : . . 7 ' ' 

Ramona KcGee 



f " 

•4 w -4 o n 


« cc 

9NM .. 

4J «H 4J 

U —-4 

O •• w B II 

£ tl O -r^ 

3 « k. O 3 

^4 n 

tJ O •> 

c > • 

C H I' 

<l C • 

4i> •^ « 

C iJ n 

■H C « 

o a 
b u 

o « 

o c 

m u 


• c 
• o 


^4 • 

■H « C 

-4 b M 
^ O-H 

a^j '^ 
a a u 

a -H « 

£ U 


o <M a 

» O 

I £ 

z a iJ 

1 o>-< 

I -0 » 

I a p- 

O 'I J< o 
-H s U 'Q 

u o a 
a c A a 


a a 
u <M a o 

n o 

-H a a £ -< 
■c .4 £ z a 



WHEREAS, Natundiztfioa Assistmoe S«rvioM (heretnafter HAS) vru apjioved by d» 
Immigntion and Nataalization Service (beremaftar INS) on Angust 12. 1994«at an authorized 
teating eatity, to •Hmintrfw « gmdardLBed EngUah langnagn, United States histtsy, and civica 
examinatioii, v^ch asdifies Section 3 12 of tlie Immigntion and Nationality Act (heninaftEr the 

4^) fft iMtufK^^nw uppHfiitM, with aifii mUhnriMtion heing cnntingmt upon KA.yi enmpliiifla 

wiifa the twelve 02) item Criteria set fixth in die 1991 Notice of Ptogran, 56 Fed. Reg. 29714-28715 
(June 28. 1991); 

WHEREAS, NAS delegated said authoiity to administer atandaidized English language. 
United States lustoty, and civics egaaninations wliicb satisfy Secdon 312 of the Act to its liciwgees 
through oonmct oi license; 

WHEREAS, Asian Pacific Reaourees (boeinaftex APR), was a liceosee of NAS, widi 
audiority granted tlirough license and delegation, to administer stmdaidized English language. 
United States histoiy, and civics wcrnnhwitinns vMdh satisfy Section 3 12 of ifae Act to applicants for 

WHEREAS, INS learned of alleged inqn^Rieties of theaNAS licensee APR, related to test 
preparation and administrsdon, which i^on review, INS detemiined not only to be ettdiely 
inconaisteat with d» standards estaUishad under thaafbremantioaBd 1991 Notice of Program but 
also to be a jirnnm^nm violation of criteria rix (<) and rnne (9) of said stmdazda; 

WHEREASt on November 22, 1995, by &osimila *^f"''«**^ at 20:47 (8:47 pm) Eastern 
Standard Time (EST), INS aiispeadad die andniQr of NAS and its lictnaeni to artministw 

of diB Act and 8 CFR f 3 I2J(aXl): 


WHEREAS, oa Novomber 29, 199S, INS issued a win to all district dincton (except 
foreign) and ofBcoraHit-Qharge (exe^ foidgn), notifying than of the suspension of NAS's testing 
autfaoriQr under section 3 12 of the Act, and directing all field ofBces to no longer accqn any NAS 

^v^fif-atw Tiling «<««< fltlfllhnwi t nf leainw ^11 le ^uii aiMnf fhy niirtiinili?«> rifin hy wiy nafiimlrwrti nn 

^iplkant dated (m or after Novensbar 22, 1995; 

WHEREAS, on December S, 1995, NAS respectflilly demanded <n itn Tpwiiiiit "in-person* 
hearing widi INS for recoosideniion of this matter and requested that INS immediately Hft the 
suspension order so that NAS licensees could resume administering citizenship examinalioas; 

WHEREAS, on December 8, 1995, INS issued NAS a Notice of Admmistntive Hearing for 
Suspension of Section 312 Testing Antfaotity of NAS, with a scheduled hearing date of December 
20, 1995, with said hearing to be hdd before Louis D. Crocetti, Associate CommlssicHier, 
Examinations, INS, for reconsideration and denovo review of the NAS suspension; 

WHEREAS, lyon review and reconsideration of this matter, both NAS and INS agreed fliat 
potential litigadcm in this case would be complex, lengdiy and costly to all patties conceaed and any 
decision of by a district court would be subjea to appeal by the losing parties with die final outcome 
UQceitain; and 

W H K.Hg A S, both N>^S "M INS Mi*vw t^nt W?*Tlffl P«*rt nf rtiJQ mrttf iy }n ^if^r hf^ \j\%f!fitMf 

and best serves the interests of justice by avoiding a complex. lengthy and costly trial, and 
suboequent qypeals which could last several yeaia; 

NOW TESREFORE, INS and NAS enter into dtia Stipulatod Setdement Agreement (die 
AgrecmantXstqwlatedutitcoiis tit i it esafuttandootiqileteiesohaionofaUmsltnain uiu ti ove ri y 
between the paitiesk and agtee to die following: 



Ai used tfaronghoutthu Agreement, the foOowiag definitioos ihall ^iply: 

1. Tlie term "party" or "parties" iball vply to MAS and INS. As the temi appUet to 
INSJtshaU include their ageoti^einployve^coiilnctmsafld/orsuocessofB In o£Boe. Asthetenn 
qiplles to MAS, it shall indode NAS, its o£Boea, dinetors and employees. 

2. The term "test,* "tasting,* or *staBdardixed citizeoaUp test" shall tefSsr to any 

wfinmaHnn , cwl nr ^ariltan, anA «ny tMt j<W[ i Mi«Hn ti nf fjMcamim frr m«iwH««^^ fry ^r sMlity 

to read and write Enelish and on ibeir knowledge of United States history snd govenmieot, as 

leqoiied under Section 312 of the Act and S CFR } 312. 


3. This Agreement officisllytsnninates die suspensiMi action taken against NAS on 
November 22, 199S. and reinstates NAS'sandiatity to administer standardized ddzenshq) testa snd 
issue HAS certiflcates noting the fulfillment of section 312 requirements fee nsturaliztfiaa by any 
naflnliationqjpUcant This Agteemeot shall become effective upon egoecutioa of this Agreement 

4. NASshaU provide prooC^tefinmofanoiigiiial or photooq^. by filflaailflaiaiiai 
Decembcf 13.1 99S, of tha eaBeelllinii at APR'* Krt-nvt to ii«4tTriTii«t>r «f trfmrffwiH /^-p^^^tiir rrffTff 
pursuant to section 312 of Ifae IMA; 


6. MAS ahaOpnvida to INS, in writing, wiflmifaiity (30) days oftfae data of aettleoMnt, 
tn INS review and ^tpcovalt'quali^ control pncednres ^Oati are place at will be 
f MshHihe drWhiAclaariydeKiie^aefHHAfeffiw«1iM«»rtt|^ff|wi^' gf^H^ Mirf<w<^ ^ 


die integrity of the testing proceduzes utilized by NAS licenaeea, provided that INS. within thirty 
(30) days from the date of this Agreement, shall request that all other authorixed testing entities, 
licensed pursuant to the 1991 Notice of Progr am , provide similar written statements of quality 
control procedures, within ninety (90) days from die date of this Agreement ; 

7. MAS .hull pnviAHnnMS inwritinq ViyAorlQy nOriwiTw^nn TVr^^ bern. 199| ^, 

8 list of all NAS licensees which continued testing after the November 22, I99S, Notice of 
Suqienilon, without notice thereof and provide a swam affidavit Paul W. Roberts, CEO, NAS, 
attesting to NAS's first knowledge of the INS Notice of Suspension on November 27, 1995, and 
attesting to notification of all NAS licensees of the suspensioo, via &cslinile during the week of 
November 27, 1995; 

8. NAS ghaM provide to DJS. in writiaf. hv cloae of business on D«sc ember 13. 199S- 
a list of all qjpUcants, including fiiU names, "A" sumbeis, and test site locations. vAo passed NAS 
examinatlbns administered by NAS licensees between November 23 and November 26 1995; 

9. NAS agrees that INS may utilize any information discovered in this matter fiar any 
lawful purpose; 

10. NAS shall release INS from any loss incuned by NAS arising in>m the suspension 
ofNAS from the date of suspaiaioa throtigh December 13, 1995, including but not limited to, any 
NAS finaooial loss, attorneys feea and testing fisea, and die parties agree that die 1991 Notice of 
Prograni, die Ad i nlnlsUrtiv e Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C 9S 551 eL ieq.,B]a(GkaBlL£fillfigSJB£BBSiD&B 

v. AttWfMvOeBeML454 P.2d92a fflC Cir. 1071), iv4 imy nther qy KcaMa ligmtMB apply to my 

fkitnre admiidstntrve actiaaa against NAS or NAS Uoansaee; 

11. NAS shall coopcntefiillywidi INS in ao^inveatigiiiofi and/or pcoaacution of NAS 
Hceasees b the maaner prescribed by law; 



12. INS may direct NAS in %vritii]g to suspend aad/or cancel the opendoQS of any NAS 
licensee with respect to ^^ch INS determines, thiDusb invesdgBtion or other infbnnation. that 
improprietiea exist in fee administration of iuimn>H7«iion tests ex ftaudnlcBt testing practjces, which 
IMS deems to be in pr™* ^<it violation of the stmdatds established under the 1991 Notice of 
Program poblished at 56 Fed. Reg. 29714-2971S (June 2S, 1991). subject to the Administrative 
Procedure Act, or any other qiplicable Uw, and if NAS fidla to do so, INS may suspend the 
operations of NAS; 

13. Upon execution of this Agreement, INS shall rescind wire no. HQ70133, dated 
November 29. 199S, and issue a new wire to all field and tegioDBl offices, by close of busiiMss 
December 13, 1995, reinstating the section 312 testing authority of NAS aixi directing all district 
directoia (except foreign) and ofScen-in-charge (except fioeign) to accept any NAS certificate 
noting the fldfiUment of section 312 requirements fat natumli2alion by any naturalization ^jplicant 
datod on or after the effective date of this Agreement, gugit that INS will not accept certificates 
issued to applicants tested by fbnner NAS a£Bliate, APR, which are dated OQ or afler November 14, 

14. CNS shall ensure that the new wire provides that all NAS certificates dated on or 
before November 22, 199S.andNAS certificates issued betweenNovember 23, 1995 and November 
26. 1995, by NAS licensees referenced in paragiq)h 8, will t-zw^tTTrw to be honored, unless fee 
Adjudications Officer tntexviewing the natuialization q>pUcant has fiim reason to believe that the 
cotificale wu fiandukndy issued, fifimt feat INS will not accept certificates issued to applicants 
tested by fboner NAS Uceosee. APR. wfaid are dated on or after November 14, 1995; 

15. INS shall ensure tet an disttktaadsuboffioeslkxconfiimationofieceiptaf the wire 
to Headquuten AfQudkatiaB, Attn: Craig Howie or Pearl Qmf, 202-5144)19S, hv elnne of 

bii«ineMaiilVMmi>wirll 1QQ<- 




16. Upon receipt of* list of oames and addresses foi all NAS licensees. INS shall. \u. 
cloM of bu «inaM Decemher Ij 199S. issue a letter to NAS and all NAS licenseea now in good 
standing, cjqnHlBg our regrata fat any inconvenience the suspenaon action mi^ have caused to 
their business operstions. 


17. The parties leprsent that they know Dodiisg in this Agreement that exceeds the legal 
authority ofthe parties or is in violation of any law. 045*3 counsel represeot and warrant that tfaey 
are fiiUy aoihorliBd and ea^owcfed to enter into this Agreement on bdudf of Ae Attorney General, 
the United States Department of Justice, and the INS, and acknowledge that NAS eaters into this 
Agreement in reUanoe on such rtpreseotBtioD. NAS represents and warrants that its CEO, Paul W. 
Roberts, is fiiUy autfaorizBd and empowered to enter into tliis A^iraement on behalf of NAS, and 
ackso^edge diat INS eaten into this Agreement in icUanoe on such lepreaentation; 

18. NAS and INS represent that tins settlement reflects the lettlement of any and all 

199S. Tliete are no other a gi c ciumta and/wundaa tandhigs between the parties other diandioae set 
fordi in this settlemeot agraemeBt 



19. The uodersigDed, by their signatures on bduIfofNAS and INS. WBrnnttfait upon 
cocaeudon of diis Agreement in tiidr respective capacitiea, their prinripila, agenti, and succeaiora 
of nich principals and agents shall be fiilly and uaequivocaUy bound hereunder to the fiiU extent 
authorized by law. 





Acting Assistant Commissionet, Ax^udications 
Innnigntion and NaturaJizstion Service 


CUef Executive OfBcer 
Natunuizatlou Assistance Services 


Dquty Oeaeral Counsel 
Immigration and Natunfization Service 




T. Alexander Aleinikoff 

Executive Ajsodatt Commistloncr, Prognms 


Bdan Ross, ABC-TV Inveitigatlve Coirespondcnt 

Monday, June 10, 1596 

Transcribed from the audio recording for. 

Immigiation and Katuralitation Service 

425 Eye Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C 20536 


QUESTION: Left ittit by talking about what W9 were talking about at d\e * 

ceremony - it seems at once so solemn and yet joyous. What's going on there? 

ANSWER: Well, I think it's a lot like a maniage ceremony. There's 
something about the statement of commitment that one is making to hopefully a 
permanent paimer for life, in effect, that belief, that commitment, that sense of a 
new beginning that leads to both laughter and uars. 

For many of these people this has been a lifebng dream. They come as 
immigrants. They've been in the country a few years, they've established roots 
here, some of them for a long, long time. For many people in the world it is the 
greatest rite they can apply is U.S. dtizeiuhip, so all of that is pent up in that one 
moment, and to observe this - 1 have seen a number of these proceedings over the 
last few years. Every single one is moving. Senior citizens becoming dtizens, 
dUldren becoming dtizens from every country in the world signing on to America. 
It's a very moving thing to witness it as well as for the partidpants. 

We who are bom here don't choose our dtizenship. If s given to us. But 
people who choose it, to watch someone choose it is very - 

QUESTION: And what does it say about this country? 

ANSWER: It'stenifit It's terrific to be part of a country that most other 
people in the world want to join and be permanent members of. We welcome it. 
This agency and the admiiUstration supported naturalization for people who want 
to join us and who qualify. 

QUESTION: The people who are there, taking that oath, what are they really 
swearing to? What have they accomplished? .What axe they saying? 

ANSWER: They're swearing to allegiance to the United States Constitution, 
to living in and partidpating in, hopefully fully, in a demoaatic sodety, & sodety 
which Is self-governing; to obey the Constitution, to be willing to bear arms on 
behalf of their new country, and to living as good dtizens, partidpating 
economically, sodally, dvilly in their new country. 

. The Commission of Immigration who has spoken to people at these events 
often, often says to people who are being naturalized, give something back of 
yourselves as wtlL You will benefit People who come to here, who have chosen 
this country/ often have the most incentive to contribute, to give something back. 

QUESTION: The people who have taken that oath, they worked hard to get 
that point 

ANSWER: Th«yhave 

QUESTION: .What have they done? 

ANSWER: Well, theyVe entered as immlgranti, and they've waited 5 years, 
usxtally, to be naturalized. Many wait more ftan tha^ 7, 10 years, before they dedde 
to take the oath. They have demonstrated knowledge of ^ country's history, of 
the English languege. They have maintained good moral character. They have not 

been convicted of serious crimes, and they have shown that they have roots in the / 

community and will live here peacefully. 

QUESTION: Why is that important? Why is that important for them to 
have demonstrated knowledge of this country's history and of the English language. 

ANSWER: Well, we think it's important that when someone becomes a 
dtlzen that they will be able to function as i citizen, to participate in 

QUESTION: Is there more to it than that? Why would they have to Vmow 
who George Washington Is, or what the Coiutitution is? 

ANSWERj Well, you may not have to know any particular fact about who 
George Washington is, but a citizen should be asked - they're asked a range of 
quesHons to someone can have some general sei\s« of the history of this country. 
It's important to know something of the history of this country to participate. 

QUESTION: That is an important thing? 


QUESTION: If people are cheating on that test, is that a serious problem? 

ANS^VER: It's wrong, and serious, and we've taken steps to search out the 
cheating and do something serious about it 

QUESTION: How long has that been going on? 

ANSWER: I guess as long as there has been a Government program there 
are some people who will try to take advantage of the system and bend the rules, so 
it's hard to know how long it's been going on. 

We've been avb'are recently of some significant probleir\s and have taken 
tough steps to deal with it in '^he future. 

QUESTION: What was behind the thinking to allow private companies, 
for-profit companies, to go into the business of citizenship tests? 

ANSWER: One thing that's Important to think about when you talk about 
giving the citizenship test, you should be aware that the giving of the test does not 
entitle someone to dtlzenship. If s ru>t as If you go In, take your test, fill out your 
questions, and if you pass, presto, you're a U.S. dtizeit 

QUESTION: If s a big step, ti\ough. 

ANSWER: Ifi one element of zrvaivy. Before somebody becomes a dtlzen, 
they have to pass a dtlzei\5hip test, they have to demonstrate knowledge of English, 
they have to communicate in English - 

QUESTION: Speak freely back and for& in English? 

A>J5WER: Yei, but they also must demonstrate that they have good moral 
character, they have to show that they have not been convicted of aiminal offenses, 
they've paid their taxes, they've signed up for the draft if they are supposed to have 
signed up for the draft, and if the/ve lived here for the requisite a period of time, so 
the dtizenship test Is one of the dements that we use to judge wheAer someone's 


ready for citizenship or not 

QUESTION; Wh»t was behirul the dedsion to make that a for-profit 

ANSWER: Well, it wasn't made a for-proflt business. What the Service did 
4 or 5 years ago was notice that there had been some complaints, actually, by people 
that were not treated as well as they should be by the Immig;ration officers, or that 
they found the interview daunting, that the test was daunting, and further that 
there may not have been a standardized test given across the agency. There wu 
some thought that if we worked with outside groups, testing entities that had 
experience in testing, they could standardize the test and they could do some of our 
work for us, at least ^t least ihat element of certifying knowledge of a citizen. 

QUESTION: Does that makes sense? 

ANSWER: It can make sense. Right now, people go to colleges and 
universities based on tests given by outside testing entitles. It's not u if eadi college 
in the United Sutes requires someone to walk in and take a test That kind of 
testing is done by outside entities, and much of Government work can be done by 
outside groups. 

The crucial thing to remember here is that even though the test is 
administered by an outside entity for-profit or not-for-profit, every single person 
who is naturalized in t>.e Urited States receives an interview with an INS officer, 
and at that interview, if there is any indication that there is fraud in the testing, or 
that there was any irregularity in the testing, the person at the interview is denied 
citizenship or retested by ^e INS officer, so it's really just a first line of tes^giving. 

QUESTION: So It matters or it doesn't matter? 

ANSWER; It matters to ti\e extent that St allows some of our work to be 
done elsewhere so that we can concentrate more on other things we need to do in 
the naturalization process, end it may make sense for testing to be administered by 
an outside entity. 

QUESTION: So there was concern that people were afraid when they went 
to see immigration officers? 

ANSWER: It can be daunting to see someone in an interview in that way, 
or more Importantly, if you take the test before, from our perspective, if someone 
fails the test, then they don't come and sperui time in front of our Interviewer, so it 
saves us time in the process, toa 

QUESTION: There wasn't an effort to make it sort of an easier process? 

ANSWER: No. There wu not - there was an effort to make it customer 

QUESTION: Customer friendly. 

ANSWER: But there was not an effort at all to reduce the standards. 

QUESTION: What do you mean by customer friendly? 

ANSWER: Well, that we tMnk if people spend the time here and have 


qualified for naturalization, just as they're reengineering their processes around the 7 

Government, that this ada^nistration has cared very much about, then we think we 
have an obligation to our customers, to our clients, to work with them in a way that 
allows them to get the benefits to which they're entitled in a way that is not 
daunting or off-putting. 

QUESTION: Do you think of prospective citizens as customers? 
ANSWER: Well, I think there's a view in Government that all the people 
here are our customers. Certainly not something that you sell citizenship. In that 
sense it's not a for-profit transaction. 

QUESTION: But it has become a for-profit transaction, giving these tests. 
It's a multimilUon dollar business now, isn't it? 

ANSWER: The testing entities charge perhaps $25 or $30 to give a test, yes. 

QUESTION: How do you dedde who should give the test? 

ANSWER: The» are regulations that were adopted 4 or 5 years ago that 
required a national organization to demonstrate their ability to give a test. 

QUESTION: What about the firm, NAS, are you familiar with that? 
ANSWER: They're one of our six national organizations. 
QUESTION: Aren't they the biggest? 

QUESTION: You have heard of them? 

QUESTION: How did they get your authority to give these test? 
ANSWER: They were one of six rational organizations a few years ago that 
presented proposals that were judged. 

QUESTION: What did they have to qualify them to give citizenship tests? 

ANSWER; I haven't reviewed the application. I don't know exactly what 


QUESTION: We asked for Ae application/ but you wouldn't give it to us. 

ANSWER: Well, the application, as I understand it, &x)m what rve been 
tdd, may include proprietary in^rmation, and in that situation - 

QUESTION: Is it true that their background was in dziver'f education? 
ANSWER: I think thafi light, yes. 
QUESTION: Does that qualify them? 
ANSWER: No, absolutely not Simply giving - 
QUESTION: But they have become the biggest in the country. 
ANSWER: Yes, but tht question is wheO^cr they can give the tests fairly. 
Now, remexhber what we're talking about We're talking about a set of 
questions that are admlnlittred hopefully in a secure manner, aiul d\e results are 


recorded fairly and reported to us. It doesn't require an entity to have a Ph.D In 
history and economics, but th.e fact that they gave tests on driving education does 
not qualify them, no. 

QUESTION: So what did qualify them? 

ANSWER I an't speak to the initial decision. I was not a part of that 
decision, but I don't know - 

QUESTION: Why can't you give us the application? We've asked for it 

ANSWER: As I said, as I understand it. It may Include proprietary 
ii\formatiO!V and in that situation we either prefer people go through the Freedom 
of Information Act, and if you're entitled to It you'll certainly get it, or to go to the 
submitter themselves and get it that way. 

QUESTION: The Federal Register said the following criteria: 5) the testing 
entity mvtst demonstrate experience in developing and admiivistering reliable 
standard examinations In the English language and dvjcs areas. Would you call 
driver's education even dose to th^at? 

ANSWER: No, I wouldn't. 
QUESTION: How did they get - 
ANSWER: I don't know what else is in their application. I don't know 
whether they were - what th.e presented. No, but people present proposals as to 
how they intend to carry this out and what their authorities are. 

If it's not - if they only demonstrated that they had given driving tests that 
would have troubled me without a lot more. 

QUESTION: How can we find out what it is that persuaded the Federal 
Government to give them this rather powerful authority? 

ANSWER: Well, we can look that Information up and let you know. I 
don't have It In front of me now. 

QUESTION: We've been asking for some time. 

ANSWER: Well, I think I said, as to the formal request, that we do prefer 
that if there is « possibility of proprietary information that you use the Freedom of 
Information Act, and whatever you're entiUed to, obviously well be happy to turn 
it over. 

W« don't have seaets. We don't want to have seaets here. We want this to 
be an open process. We want our testing agendes to be aedlble tgendes, and that is 
why we considered a number of Important reforms in recent months that are going 
to tighten that process up, and In fact we have a regulatory review xmderway which 
should be completed shortiy whldi will take a very hard look at these assodations, 
and if we determine ftom past experience there's a greater risk with for-profit 
agendas u opposed to non-profit agendes, we won't hesitate to change the rules. 
We're intent on a fair, secure system. 

QUESTION: NA5 hu ivovt more Oum 400 test centers where the dtizenship 


testis done. Are you satisfied vnth the job they're doing? ^7 

ANSWER: We have entered Into much doser monitoring relationship 
with NA5, as you probably know. I'm sure you know a number of ninths ago we 
temporarily suspended NAS because we were not satisfied with what they were 
doing. There were allegations of wrongdoing in MlrmeapoUs, and we took very 
qxdck action and suspended them and reached an agreement with them under 
which they agreed to monitor more closely their affiliates and, in fact, several of 
their affiliates have been suspended. 

Just last month we received a criminal conviction involving the test taker in 
Hawaii that was involved in fraudulent activity which is something we take very 
seriously, and we're intent on pursuing. 

QUESTION: You suspended them, but you got them back in the program. 
They're still In business today. 

ANSWER: NAS is a national organization. There are a number ut affiliates, 
as we poir.ted out. We're monitoring their activity. We're in contact with aU the 
national organizations they have af^ated. 

QUESTION: Are you satisfied with what they're doing? 

ANSWER: We are more satisfied. Vv'e'ie going to 

keep a dose watch over them. 

QUESTION: What's changed? 

ANSWER: Well, under the settlement they have to tmdertake doser 
monitoring and secure answers, and nuke sure the grading is done elsewhere. 
They're on the line now, and they know that if there's anything farther they run 
the real risk of being out of this business altogether. 

QUESTION: How often do INS inspectors go into their headquarters and so 
on and look over their documents? 

ANSWER: I don't know that information. Youll have to ask the folks in 

.QUESTION: Do they ever go there? 

ANSWER: We have sent several members recently from headquarters that 
installs an on-8it« inspection program whidi we started up. 
QUESTION: It hasn't started yet? 

ANSWER: No, but the local districts have always hAd the authority to have 
spot'dvecks from time to time. I cant tdl you the districts or the places the/ve gone, 
but that has happened in the past 

QUESTION: A former employee has told us that when she worked there 
she regularly saw tests - 

ANSWER: A former employee of INS or of NAS? 

QUESTION: Of NAS! She tdd us that she had regularly seen tests where all 
the sentences In English were written in Ae same hand. 


ANSWER Well, that's exactly •• I mean, one of the - 

QUESTION: And she told her superiors and told 

ANSWER: Her superiors at NAS? 

ANSWER: In the national organization. 

QUESTION: In the national organization. 

ANSWER: Well, I mean, that is obviously - we knew - what we have now 
put into the monitoring system is a requirement ^at there be outside scoring, 
scoring outside the test, affiliate test-giver so that those kinds of comparisons can b« 
made, and I believe in one of the criminal cases that was relevant information, th« 
handwriting was the same, that obviously the raised good points. 

QUESTION: She also said during the time that NAS was under suspension 
they were receiving behind-the- scenes help from an official of INS, a Government 

ANSWER: I have no knowledge of that either way. 

QUESTION: Who was Skip ToUason? 

ANSWER: Skip Tollason was someone who up until March - 

QUESTION: He described to us t]->at he was sort of a point man In this 

ANSWER: He was one of the people, as I understand it - I'm not fully 
aware of how that unit worked, but he was one of the people who was in contact 
with the outside organizations and reviewed their applications. 

QUESTION: Was it his ]ob to help them get around suspension, to give 
them legal advice? 


QUESTION: To pass on documents from the INS to them? 

ANSWER: No, it was not 

QUESTION: If he did that, would diat be In violation of anything? 
ANSWER: I don't know that getting around the suspension means you're 
giving legal advice. I should say &at I really don't feel very comfortable in 
commenting more, because there is an ongoing investigation involving a former 

QUESTION: Do you know where Mr. Tollason works now? 
ANSWER: I beUeve he's working with NAS now, 

QUESTION: Do you know where K&. ToUason works Tww? 
ANSWER: Mr. Tollason left the INS, and I believe he's now running one of 


41-503 97-4 


the affiliates that's assodited with NAS, and that's part of the ongoing investigation 
we have. 

QUESTION: What would be wrong with that? 

ANSWER Well there are rules in Government about worWng on matters 
that one has worked on in one's job in particular situations. 


QUESTION: Do you know where Mr. ToUason is 

working now? 

ANSWER: I think Mr. Tollason left In March of this year, and I believe he's 
now working at one of the af^ates of NAB, which is part of the ongoing 
investigation situation. I don't feel comfortable commenting beyond that 

QUESTION: What would there be about that that you would want to 

ANSWER; Well, in certain circumstances it's not permitted under Federal 
law to work on matters that one had a direct interest in when working in the 
Federal Government. 

QUESTION: According to the former employee of INS who we talked with, 
he was almost on a daily basis spending hours and hours on the phone with NAS 
top man Paixl Roberts, during th.e time of the suspension, saying hang in there, 
we're going to get you through thi5, don't you worry. 

Now, how could it be that on the one hand the INS is investigating and has 
suspended this firm, and yet Tollason is apparently on the phone offering 
encouragement and trying to fmd a way to get ^ound this? 

ANSWER: Well, these are things that are under investigation, and as I say, I 

don't feel comfortable commenting on them. 

QUESTION: Is t\at troubling loyou? 

ANSWER: It depends on what was being said, but yes, it could be troubling. 

QUESnON: Do you know the name of the place he works at now? Here are 
his business cards. Now, one day he was a senior INS ofSdal and then the next day 
he's 4 corporate officer. 

ANSWER: Well, yes, we're troubled by this. The name of his new 
orgardzation Is Qtizenship USA, which is also the name of the Commissioner's 
program for promoting naturalization, and it wu the fact that we received his 
bu^ess card that sparked our lidtlal Inquiry into whether dxis w&s appropriate 
behavior by a former employee, so we are tiJdng a look at this quite dosely. 

QUESTION: How could someone tell the difference between the 
Government Citizenship USA and th« for-profit company run by ?aul Roberts and 
Skip ToUaton, Qtizenship USA7 

ANSWER: WeH I think that's « real problem, and ttiat's why we've got the 
general counsel's ofSct taking a look at It; 



QUESTION: Are you convinced that you acted appropriately in taking him f 

off suspension, g:iven the fact that Tollason as an INS offldal was involved in trying ' * 
to help them? 

ANSWER: Well, I think those are two separate Issues. Whether or not 
Tollason's actions with NA5 were appropriate, we are taking a look at now. 
Whether or not they should have come oack off suspension is a question of whether 
ti\ey can reassure us that they are now conducting their business in an appropriate 
fashion, and that we are doing an ongoing monitoring off and wUI continue to do 

QUESTION: They came off suspei^.on in December of lAst year, and have 
they acted differendy since? 

ANSWER: They have Tljey have - beause we have required them to 
come forward with a plan u to how they will moiUtor this, under this plan they 
have already dismissed a number of their affiliates. We view that as progress. 

QUESTION: How many? 

ANSWER: Tm not sure that I'm - several. 

QUESTION: Several. For any particular reason? 

ANSWER: I think a range of reasons. I can get you further information. I 
don't have it in front of me, but it includes things like indiscretions in the testing as 
well as perhaps overscheduling the number of interviews. I don't know the 
specifics, but it's a range of issues. 

QUESTION: In February axxd March of tfiis year, according to the former 
employee, tests where there was apparent cheating were being passed. All 200 
people from one place in California had similar handwriting on the English 
sentence, and she was told by her superiors, vice presidents of NAS, to go ahead, 
pass everybody. 

ANSWER: Well, the first thing is, I would urge that person to come 
forward, beause if those people are committing fraud, serious fraud, we want to 
know about it and we want to stop it, and we'd like information from the employee, 
from outside groups who know anything about this. We will take action. 

We convicted five people in Hawaii in the last mondi on this. We will take 
strong action, 
r But secondly, if » Important to remember here thAt simply passing the >. 

\ dtiztnshlp test do^ not guaraiUet someone dtlzeiuhip. That person must still ) 

< come before an INS exaaiiner, and if that person cannot speak English, understand S 
/ English, or in any wajr appean that the application is not in order, he or she will not \ 
I be gruxted U3. ddzenship. ^ 

^ QUESTION: The former employer (old us that some of Ae NAS affiliates 

had friends who were on Immigration inspections in Callfonda and passed flirou^ 
people - 

ANSWER: Again, those axe allegations, flut is a very serious charge. 



corruption of INS extminers. If that is true, we v,1U take very strong action agaix\st ~ t 

them. •• 

QUESTION: Why Is that Important? 

AMSWER: It is important dut people that comply with the law, that our 
officers comply with the law, that people meet the requirements of citizenship in 
order to be entitled to US. citizenship. Thaf s the Federal statute, and that's the 
agency policy. 

QUESTION: In giving that test do the affiliates of NAS or any place else, do 
they assume a sort of governmental power, and are they held to a certain staiulard 
under the law? 

ANSWER: They don't usume a certain power. They're not acting u 
Government agents. They're acting as private contractors, and again, I have to keep 
stressing this, the mere passing of the test does not endow them with cltizei\ship. . 
It's merely one of many prerequisites to attaining citizenship. 

They are not Government agents, but they are still subject to the rules. 
Whether or not they can continue to give tests on behalf, they have to meet our 
requirements, and if they are participating in fraud on a Government ofEdal or 
corrupting public officials they are subject to Federal aiminal statutes. 

QUESTION: Is cheating on the test a violation of Federal law? 

ANSWER; Cheating on the test - do that again. Actually, I'm not - it's a 
technical question. I'm not sure I know the answer. Do you want the real answer, 
or do you want me to - 

QUESTION: What is - what do you - lef s talk for a second- 


QUESTION: Is cheating on the test a violation of Federal law? 

ANSWER; If a person cheated on the test and did not satisfy the dvlcs test; 
then they axe not eligible for dtizanship, and if they were luiturallzcd based on the 
cheating, then they couldn't be naturalized and that would be a violation of 
citizenship law. 

QUESTION: How about from the point of view of NAS, or any other places 
chosen to give the tests? If there's a pattern of cheating which they Ignore for som* 
. reason or another - to make some money ~ is that a violation of Federal law? 

ANSWER: Well, it would cotainly be a violation of our understanding ai\d 
they would be terminated from acting on our behalf in terms of giviivg the test 
There may be other violations we could speak to the U.5. Atfomty about in terms of 
mail fraud or other kinds of claims of defrauding a Federal agency. 

QUESTION: Tcople involved NAS in Hawaii have been cortvlcted. 

QUESTION: There were serious allegations in Minneapolis. Yet NAS Is still 
in business. Why? 



ANSWER: Well we ~ u I said, we've entered Into a monitoring agreement 
with NAS. They tenninated some of their affiliates. Timiy have made - to this 
point taken steps we think do iu>t require a total termination. 

QUESnON: You're satisfied as to how they^ performing now? 

ANSWER: Based on the ir\fbiination we have in front of us at this point w« 
do not have grounds for a total termination, but we art watching them closely, and 
if fur^er things come to light wt will not hesitate to suspend them again or 
terminate our relationship with &em again. 

QXJESn^^: Could I show you a piece of tape that we made undercover of 
NAS affilUtes? 

ANSWER: Sure. 

QUESTION: This tape was made after the agreement you made with NAS 
when they said they were going to dean up their act at a place they had been told by 
their employees had (inaudible). Take a look and see. 

TWs is the Dallas - it's called Spanish Business Center. They classed the test, 
English citizenship. 

Just holding it there a second. Do you d\ink you can teach American history 
and English in a few hours? 

ANSWER: No, you obviously can't teach it in a few hours. What you can 
do, hopefully, is to give a refresher course to people about things they should have 
gathered over 5 years of residency. 

VOICE: (on tape) All day today we're going to review the exam. We're 
going to see everything that's going to be in the exam. The exam consists of 22 
questions. Two of the questions are going to be two sentences in English, which Tm 
going to dictate to you, and the rest of the questions are going to be multiple choice 
questions. You will see the quetdon, and then you will see four answers so that you 
caj\ underline the correct answer, and - are the questions going to be in English or 
Spanish? All of the questions are in English. 

I don't know any English. You don't know any at all? Oh, you do know 
some. Well, in other words, today we are going to set all of the questions that will 
be in the exam. 

Everything we're going to review today - for example, how many stars does 
the flag have, 50, aU of that will be in the exam in English. In other words, we're 
going to see - what we're going to see today will be in the exam. If s not that I'm 
going to give you any surprise questions. 

QUESTION: 'There's a woman that says she kiu)ws no English. She's thert 
to take a dass, and take the test Canftuitbe? 

ANSWER: Well, it can bt if the afSllate is basically stealing people's money 
here by taking someone who knows no English, because A^t person will not get 
through the Q^S interview. 



Remember, there's an interview to follow here by the Immigration Service, / 

and people have to pass the spoken English test, and if it's dear from die questions '* 

that the interviewer Is asldng the person cannot speak English, and does not 
understand English, then dearly they couldn't have pused the civics test 
appropriately and we would be very troubled by that event, and the person would 
not be naturalized on that basis. 

■So I view that as a defrauding event. If s a consumer's right to a fair test, and 
at that point it seems to me that that person should be told Oiat they're unlikely to 
be able to qualify for dtizenship. 

QUESTION: That didn't happen. 

ANSWER: Thafs a problem. 

QUESTION: What does it say about this operation? 

ANSWER: There are problems, and we would lilc< to investigate whaf s 
going on and take steps. 

VOICE: (on tape) Some sentences that Tm going to dicUte to you in English 
will come from these three, okay. Vm going to take words from each of these 
sentences, and I will aeate two new sentences, okay, so then the first thing we're 
going to do is, you are going to write these sentences on one sheet of paper, and later 
we arc going to go over these in fulL 

Over one side we're going to take this sentence, 
and we're going to write it over on the whole page. 

The hat is new. Which is the word for hat? The hat is new. 

Okay, and the last sentence is - okay, you don't need to know the 
translation, but you need to know how it's writfen, basically. 

Basically, the new sentences that I will dictate to you will come from these 
three, yes. In other words, they're going to be dictated, in other words, right? 
They're going to be dictated, okay. Tney will be dictated, and they will come from 
these three. There will be no new surprise words. They will be (ictated. 

After the break well start &e exam, okay? As soon u the exam starts, the 
flrst thing I will do Is dictate the two sentences. 

QUESTION: Is that the kind of thing that you envisioned when you 

ANSWER: No, it's not 

QUESTION: What's wrong wiA it? 

ANSWER: Well, the test hu to be more than giving people three or four 
things to memoxiz«, taltiing a S-minute break and then asking them to put it back 
down on paper. It should show some basic knowledge of our history, our 
Govemmeni our form of li/c, arvd our language, and I dont think - at least horn 
the bit you've shown me there; it doesn't seem that that process it being served by 
this kind of activity. 



QUESTION: And yet, as you miy or may not know, they advertiM that they / 

arc fully authorized by the Federal Government, by the Immigration and • 

NatmaUzation Service, to represent themselves as extensions of you. 

ANSWER: They do at the moment, and this is vihy we have undertaken 
additional monitoring^ and very important here — 

QUESTION: TWs is after NAS - 

ANSWER: Let me firdsh my sentence if I could, please. We are in the 
middle of a full-scale review of our outside entities and the process for certifying 
them. We're loolung at a range of options, from the INS doing all these tests 
themselves to going ordy to non-profit agencies, to looking at other kinds of 
arrangements where the districts will b« directly responslUc for it, to looking at the 
local teveL We are in the middle of a wide-scale review of this, and it should be 
reaching its conclusions shortly. 

QUESTION: But while you do that there are thousands of these tests being 
given every week. 

ANSWER: Again - 

QUESTION: People are paying $300, $400 for these tests. 

ANSWER: Again, all these people are tested again before an INS officer 
when they come to the Cs'S, so people are not being nativalized who should not be 

QUESTION: But at the moment they have your offidal blessing. You've 
had questions about them, you've somehow resolved them, and they continue to 

ANSWER: We've resolved them for the moment based on the St. Paul 

QUTSnON: This was after all that 

ANSWER: Tm saying, there was a St Paul affiliate that we thought were 
not doing an adequate job. They terminated their relation with the affUlate, and 
when we get additional informttlon about any oth«r af£liate, and if the evidence 
wanants we will not heslute to take stK>ng acdon agairu 

QUESTION: Lef s take another look here at more of the test. 

VOICE: IhtavU War began in 1861, okay. You don't have to worry about 
that one. That won't oomt up, okay. That one wont corns Aq>. 

QUESTION: Hwf could he know that wldu>ut seeing the test? 

ANSWER: Well, If i an inappropriate comment, of course. 

QUESTION: And you don't hear much English. 

AN'SWER: No, you don't; but people can demonstrate their knowledge in 
other ways. Pm lest troubled by that tiian I am by someona saying, hen's a &ct, but 
don't wmy, it's not on d\e test Thaf s not a very good pedagogical technique. 

QUESTION: What does it mean? 




ANSWER It means that our tests should be testing knowledge, and the • • 

people should learn as 3\uch &s they can about the coimtry and not just (inaudible) 

VOICE: Are there any questions? 

Yes. If you don't pass the cxim when the answer comes back from 
Inunigration, we will help you in the next one again. For the next one, on the - but 
until today, no one has not passed the exam. No one has passed it? No, everyone 
passed It No one hu not passed it. 

QUESTION: A hundred percent successful. 

ANSWER: Well, but what's interesting, if you heard him, he said, if th* 
question comes back from Immigration and you haven't passed. He may be talking 
about his own pass rate. He's concerned - 

QUESTION: I don't think so. 

ANSWER But he's concerned about what the Immigration Service will say 
when that person gets to ti^e Immigradon Service. 

QUESTION: Do you know the success rate of NAS? 

ANSWER: The success rate at NAS is not far off the success rate of the other 
organizations or from the INS when it gives this test They're all 80 to 90 percent. 

QUESTION: Ninety-three percent Remarkable, Isn't it? 

ANSWER: Well, actually, as I said, it's fairly comparable to INS success 
rates, which are about 90 percent, and in other testing agendes, whic^ range from 
the eighties to the nineties as weU, so it's not that out of the ordinary. 

QUESTION: Tt.ey advertise on radio in Dallas, guarantee you pass the test. 
Is that appropriate? 

ANSWER: Well, I think I prefer that they advertise that they give the test 

QUESTION: Right, and of course, they always add that they're ofSdally 
approved by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Doesn't that bother you? 

ANSWER: WeU, I think one of the things that we're looking at In this 
regulatory review is whether we should be worldng with nonprofits, fo>profit$, 
whether we should be doing all the testing ourselves, all that will come up in a very 
thorough review to make sure we've got the most secure testing situation, that 
really makes sure diat people who want and deserve dtizenship get it 

QUESTION: There's a bit xnort hert of the test agaiiv. 

VOICE: Okay, because if t against the law to speak in Spanish once &\t test 
start«. In English, try to ask me u much as you can in EngjUsh, wd if you can't, wcU 
thtti; ask In Spanish, okay, and raisft your hand and TU come to you. 

QUESTION: It is the law, right, it must be given in English? 

ANSWER The test has to be given. I didn't understand his statement that 
the dass could not be given - 

QUESTION: He's talking about giving die test 



ANSWER: The test must be given In English, yes. 
QUESTION: So without any Spanish spoken. 

ANSWER It depends what the question Is, but if it's a question about the 
question and the answer's In Spanish, that probably is not appropriate. 

VOICE Okay, turn the test over, okay. Open fl\e exam. On the right side, 
aha, lower right, you'll see two numbers, 1 and 1 They are black, okay. 'Diat's the 
two sentences, okay. Now you're going to dictate them? That's what Pm going to 
do, dictate them. 

The first sentence: 
VOICE 2: The hat has a rose on it 
VOICE: I will repeat the first one, okay. 
VOICE i The hat has a rose on it 
VOICE: Iwillr&patltagam. 
VOICE 2: The hat has a rose on it 
VOICE: Once again. 
VOICE 2: The hat has a rose on it 

QUESTION: Is that how an INS inspector would give the test? 
ANSWER No, it's not, and be aware again that when a person comes in 
they will be tested - 

QUESTION: In terms of this test? 

ANSWER ~ on spoken English. No, we would not give a test on - 
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) 

ANSWER: It would be a fairly simple declarative statement, but it wouldn't 
be repeated, I don't believe, as slowly or as many times. 

QUESTION: Now I finally want to show you what went on in the multiple 
choice section of the test. 

QUESTION: What do you thirJ; of that? 

ANSWER Well, that* a absolutely inappropii&te and unacceptable, and we'll 
take action based on tivis case. Tm gUd you brou^t it fo our attentioiu 

QUESTION: Is there any reason he should be pointing out anyAing on that 
test, whispering like that? 

ANSWER There's certainly no reason to be giving answers. 
QUESTION: -Anything else, any other possible interpretation? 
ANSWER If s hard to imagine a good interpretitloiu Fd be Interested in 
what he said he was doing. We can't Jump to conclusions quickly, but if he is giving 
aiuwers that is not permitted. If • iruppropiiatc, if s a breach of our agreement, and 
if I - 1 don't know H U's criminally defrauding the country, but if s certainly 




defrauding the import&r.ce that we attach to the test and to citizenship. 

QUESTION: This is an affiliate, a big one, of NAS. You've had problems in 
Hawaii, in Minneapolis, and now we're sho\\dng you this. Why are they still in 

ANSWER: Well, we can't be everywhere at all times. We have actually 
done some spot>checlcs in Dallas, as a matter of fact 
QUESTION: At this place? 

ANSWER' I don't know whether this place or not, but we have done a 
tighteidng of procedures. As I keep saying, we're undergoing a thorough review of 
this procedure, the whole thing. 

QUESTION: I know you keep saying that, but thousands of these tests are 
being given every week by NAS afflliates around the country. Doesn't that trouble 

ANSWER: It troubles me. It troubles me to see something like this. It 
troubles me. We've taken concrete action, gotten convictions, we've s\ispended 
them -- 

QUESTION: But d\ey're still in b\isiness. They're making lots of money. 

ANSWER: They're making mor«y. There are also many people who are 
going through their tests in a perfectly appropriate fashlort The majority of the 
million people that were rvaturalized in this country this year have play»i by all the 
rules. They're entitled to citizenship. >-. 

QUESTION: Isn't that all the more reason to stop operations that cheat on 
the whole concept? 

ANSWER: Absolutely. Absolutely. 

QUESTION: But they're sdll In business. You haven't done that. 

ANSWER: V/e question the actions of the local af^ates, not of th.e overall 
agency. We have - 

QUESTION: The overall agency is aware of this if they have been told by 
employees they were cheating end they were told to ignore it They're making $20 
evtfy time somebody takes one of those tests. They're miking millions of dollars 
off of this. Why are these people still in business? 

ANSWER: This Is information to us, more information, and well take 
appropriate action based on the information wt receive and develop. 

QUESTION: How much more do you have to know? You've had the 
problem In Hawaii, criminal convictions, y^u had ti\c allegations in Minneapolis/ 
one of your own employees helping them out, going in business with them ^ day 
h* left Government Doesn't that raise enough red flags? 

ANSWER: It raises red flags that we will taka very seriously and we will 
take a dos«, hard look at now again. You can't prejudge. You have to give people a 
chance to explain what's going on, but this is significant evidence; these are 



troubling consequences, and I believe we will pursue it. 

QUESTION: I tike it this is not At all what you had in mind when you went 
down dus road with a change in policy. 

ANSWER: No, of course not Of course not No one wants questions to be 
given away. No one waivts anyone naturalized or even to come to an INS office 
(inaudible) a process that shouldn't be taken. Thtfi not appropriate. 

QUESTION: We talked before at the beginning of the interview about that 
emotional moment of citizenship. Most people - and we've met them, too, have 
gone out there and studied lUght and day and they've been in those classes, and 
they've squeezed in two jobs, and thcy^rc gone to school, arul ^ey really learn what 
the Constitution stands for. When you contrast that with what we showed you 
today, how do you feel about that? 

ANSWER: Well, I feel two ways. I feel very troubled by an agency that is 
making money from people that they should not be, although ask the applicants 
themselves - 

(End side 1.) 

QUESTION: Doesn't the whole thing blow your mind? Doesn't It raise 
questions about whether this is the appropriate policy? 

ANSWER: It certainly does, which is why we've got a very serious policy 
review underway, and they'll be announcing results a montii ahead. 

QUESTION: If s been going on for months. 

ANSWER: We've taken strong action in the put months. We've gotten 
criminal convictions, we've suspended affiliates, they've suspended additional 
affiliates - 

QUESTION: Even after that, we found this going on in Dallas. 

ANSWER: There will be instances like this. There will alvrays be instances 
like this. It's our job - 

QUESTION: How can you believe it when they say - 
ANSWER: - to do something about them. 

QUESTION: Have they really cleaned up their act at NAS if this is going on? 
ANSWER: This is something we will pursue quickly and effectively. 
(End interview.) 



J An 3 1995 
CO 12851. ..i^i 



Proposal on Naturalization 
Interview Waivar Pilot 


DEC 28 894 



Managemant Team 

Ftoffl ortica of Policy ^ 
and Planning 

.• r' 

In the inttrcst o£ a broad-basad tnanay^mftnt raviav and 
dacision process, ^jattache'd for consideration is a multi-part 
proposal for waiving naturalization interviews for selected groupi 
of applicants. The propoaal emanates from a June 1994 survey 
conducted by a naturalization work group. The Commissioner has 
requested that the group's recommendations be reviewed by managers 
and discussed at the Executive Staff level. > 

Because the proposal is multl->f aceted and derived from a 
longer report, reviewers are encouraged to refer to the 
attachments which accompany the proposal. Having done so, you are 
asked for your views and comments on the items found on the check 

^*yftfafflgl»;ga^a'??a^^^ byi 

JaKjl^ as HQOPP will ~te coordinating comments for the 
E*xe~cutive Staff. All District Directors and Chief Patrol Agents 
should provide an information copy of their response to their 
respective Regional Director. Based on comments received, a 
decision package will be presented to the Executive Staff for 
action in early February. If you have any questions regarding the 
issues presented in the submission, please contact Skip Tollifson, 
Adjudications (202-514-0597; r"fax 202-514-0198)! ); if you have 
questions regarding this process, please contact Walt Wondolowski, 
HQOPP (202-616-7711; fax 202-514-9718) . 

Robert L. Bach 

Executive Associate Commissioner 








(Response Form) 



Pleasa provida your nspons* and ratum to tba Offica ofPoBcy and Planing at Haadquattan 
notatarthan Decamttr20, 1994. 

Office of Policy and Planning: Room 6042; FAX 202-514-971 8 

Worklno QrouB Recommenditlone 

1. Establish a waiver of the naturalization Interview for all applicants who are under 18 
years of age, both at the time of application and the date of admission to citizenship. 


Agraa DIsagraa Comments_j^ (See Attached) 

2. Establish a waiver of the naturalization interview of all applicants over 65 years of age on 
the date' of filing for naturalization and who on that date have lived in the U.S. at least 20 

years subsequent to a lawful admission for pennanent residence. 

Agree Disagree . Comment s i/^ (Sae Attached) 

3. Establish a waiver of the naturalization Interview of ail applicants over 50 years of age on 
tne date of filing for naturalization and who on that date have lived in the U.S. at least 20 

years subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residehce, AND who have passed 
a standardized test administered by an auUiorized entity IN ANY LANGUAGE which 
demonstrates their knowledge of U.S. history and'Bovemment 

^ ■ . y ^ 

Agree Disagree ■■ C^mmantsj^ (See Attached) 

A. Establish a waiver of the naturalization Interview of an applicants over 55 years of age on 
the date of fiOng for naturalization and who on that aate have lived In the U.S. at least 15 
years subsequent to a ltMfu\ admission for permanent residence. AND who have passed 
a standardized administered by an authorized entity IN ANY LANGUAGE which 
demonstrates their knowledge of U.S. history and government 

Agree DIsagrta Comment s u^ (Saa Attached) 



5. EsUblish a waiver of the naturalization Interview of all applicants who have passed a 
complete standardized citizenship test conducted In the English language administered 
by an authorized entity for persons who can speak ^glish using ordinary words in 
everyday usage to be verified at time of appearance. 


Aorm m Dlsaan e Cemm»nt s>iX , (S»9 Attaehad) 

6. Establish a waiver of the naturalization Interview for all applicants within the purview of 
P.L 103-416 as it relates to persons who are physically or developmentaily disabled or 

mentally Impaired as Is related to naturalization eligibility and who have been so certified 
by an INS designated qlvil surgeon.' i . 

Agre e Disagree ' ' Comment s t/ (See Attached) 

7. Establish a waiver of the naturalization Interview of all applicants who entered the U.S. 
prior to reaching the age of 16 years and who were graduated from an accredited U.S. 

high school. 

Agree Disagre e Comment s ix (Sea Attached) 

8. Establish a waiver of the naturalization Interview of all persons who have completed at 
least four years of college study and hold a baccalaureate degree or higher and who 
presently are employed as members of a profession, as that term is defined for 
immigration purposes. 

Agree Disagree Comment s \/ (See Attached) 

9. Establish a wralver of the naturalization Interview for all persons who have completed an 
INS approved Adult Education Course and have attached to their applications an 
acceptable Certificate of Completion. ■ 

Agree Disagree Comment s iX rSee Attached) 



10. i^aeammendad Stntaov : Eneourag* all distrlett to participate In the full waiver interview 
pDot prDgram.' LocaEze control and rtfsponalblllty to encourage field officers to perceive 
the pilot as a personal agenda Item of the District Director rather than a nebulous gojil of' 

Agn» DIsaan B Comments ix(St« Attachtd) 

Nam»' ^*'*'^ Shuler, A/ADDE q^^^. January 18, 1995 

OroanizatTon: DOJ/INS E::aainatlons 

Phone # (2] 4) 655-3049 fAXt (214) 655-3032 



Bxe^tive Synopsis of 

Results in 30 Days: 
Re-Engineering (Jftte Naturalization 

TAff NoXuralization Re-EngineerUig Team, 
•'May 1995 

PRC, tnc. Httda- contnal to Ima^givSon and Netrtntaatmi Sendee 



M 70U up Aworc, Oonunlssioner MdMncr hai cmblUbcd aatanJixAdoji M a Servics pilail^. 
IV Tn^^ ;bit S9»i, vo mtm review coirent ptoonsM to faictMio offideacy, IiEprovo cutomor mvicc, 
ait:'S!>fiv^)tniifiicyo{tbofixKcu. Tbo ServfaodccUon it to proceed vittitooiuM of acdontibat 
b>9fnpaimss Bmnsa Pnxsu Re-eogfamtins (BPIQ t« a vtiikje to flmdiaaeatiil retUnUag tod ndlcal 
r?4^gB of ow n>tiii«U««toiii p;pp?^»<« ia ontct tq t>x)i>s n't'iml is^rovonwM xwpdoA to iMpoad to Ae 
hKAhSicd dotoand for nxtnmlizatkin. 

ThogoalofBPRbtonsipniTQibctatcgcigrofduaiumnUztti^ «bQo u the tMw tiot9 

iv^pnTvioiE tbe .ocrvkv we fdve to onr castomcn, both the opptiaiats md tbo Atoertcan poblk. bttegri^ 
ia tidis process it ^dilevcd by nuMog the ri|tit dcdalom. mlUdng qipniniate tctonnee to moat tfao 
<cas«49. aod complctiss^o woric withla otabli*hqf} ttme Ibes. 

Tlw main poiat of (be rpHcoj^lortttof cfibit oatltoed in the ROacbed (uiooxny ia tiut the Service 
Rt<fi3 to bsttcr utHlns ita imokiccs. One pf die most time coDSuming parts of tilie pracou ia tiio 
ioi^fvicw. To bcner servo tbe pj^bili: while aUdwioj; better use of na a4)udicai»r's time, the lopoa 
pn^r-cs ufc of an "Expaodcd ^ jroinnti on Proc'Ss'', wUdi will allow tho MJudicator a way to detonninc 
dc Kopc of the imcTvkw iKxxicd. This coacq^t, wfll be tested at ±Q Los Angdci Re-eojloecring PHot. 
Q-uic? crcu ttmscd in ifac rqrait locludc an cxpaosioo of outside testing for Section 312 reqnixaoem!, 
aod c i^rpaier rclluce on coauoualcy biucd organtodons to auift applicants wlA infbniutian and fbici 
prcpanaiioD, tsA to assist the Service with logistics Pt fiinl bOKcinp. Tbo report also rooosuuadf tbo 
II?': croaWccOcaoiosfiv dm cotiy, sod contrsoorsuppon for records fUoctloDS. Some rcgulatloiB and 
pUky vUl cbangp. Tbis is coosistcm wifti our goal to atop ovei>fqpi]ating and to conduct most of onr 
b^T^sj thiou£h Opcranon jDstnicdkxa and tundboolc vbbA can more readily bo revt^ to accooasodRto 
c!;r^Ki, ■■ * 

Even with the recent rcprogranuiuns and the rctoutosa it will bring, tlic oaturalizadon receipts 
0>00,QQO projocted for FY 95) still ;e<iuire th«t we improve pur process if wo aro to achieve a re»ooablo 
pr?«?sLag timo. and confer a timely adJudicAtion wMle Improvuig integrity la the dociaioa-mnUog 


The BPR report includes shoit and long tam proposftla. Some of these proposals wo mey ad^, 
T^hik ?fo rosy defer othcn, or <h*cnnine tixgr wc va^ appropxiaw. Aiees to bo addressed in the long tern 
i>y ^ BFR ioitiadvc isdudo whaha we »bo«ld seek a taw cbtnga to rq>lace oitizeosb^ ccrtificatea with 
roao otis donimeiagion. aod reduction of cycle time by eliminating Amctions that do not add vahie to 

eai t^ork prodita. 

These reooEomeodations represaot a (tandMncDtal change in Ae way we go about the busiocst of 
aAturalizatioa. To assist whh the planning decisions of this project,' please revkw tin oumnsiy report 
jqd 3hM6 your ooaHneatj. 

Ec-£nstnccring Impkmenmion Ptan 



Executive $ynQp$fs of "RehSngineering the Naturallietlon Process" 


Compelling Cox for 

Reoeot evcntt in dnnudally changing the impoitmoo nd 
ntgen^- qfiwiniiig ddzenihip. Tlio sdmalnt of tbt gnen end 
R^lacemeatpn^ilm, the betoato iatfao inmibarof iadividnta 
(Mde digiblo for natunlioKioa bccawo of dw l^aBztfiaa 
progmn, tbe puM go of Criifomln't Piupuiiliuii 187, nd llio 
(bsft wcl&v rcfban IcgulMkn kk cn^og natanJintigo 
applkadoos to tpinl upniudt In iccoitl Bombon. At 1M,4S9 
rmipts for the fint six mooihs of FY 95 (throng Match 1993), 
Los Aogdu Is e:q)C(lcaclag a 176% Increase over last )niiir. 
Rccdpu of nMuniiziKion iqiplicatioin have increased by 141% in 
California, 100% in the seven Vsy cities, and 83% Seiviec-wide.' 
These iccdpt Icx'els aie vxpeOxA to continue throu^out liic 
immigniion debate that is domisatiag the conntr}*. Thev- could 
even continue bcx-ond should a le-^ngineored and moie custotaci- 
fiicndly process prove as effective as Hotidpatcd. 

Rba ki DiBFfri h tht antran KajtOMm 

n^gg 4MM tUOt WJNP 1«IM* UMM I4MM 

Sevoni>- poRieiit of dm nadon'i recelpta are coming fiom seven 
kej- dticj— Los Angeles, San FraadJco, New Yoik Cit>-, Mfanol, 
Chicago, Ncwuk sod Houston. The slate of Califemia is deatiy 
"ofiFthe scrie" with 40% of the nation's N-400 tecdpts. 

Soaicc G22J rq>on ti sf March 1995. ntich compares N-lOO iccdpl* tot the 6nt ah moalhi erFY M (blu 
bus) «1lb the Hm sx Donihs ofFY 75 (pink ben). 

R*-Engtnoving Implowtntaaon Ptvt " 


Taking Action 


riUBMW>|t« •( Mr«H»4rM« lUal^ RMdtnd In Kay QMi 

Statistics for the number of backloggcd CtKodcd") appliodoni 
are equally bleak. Oon igain, CtUibraia is » key tn^ct tvith 49V< 
of the nation's peod«d cues. Up-to-ilatc estimascs for the size of 
the backlog in the Los Angles Distiia Of!Ioc lange fh>m 100,000 
to 200,000. Seivlce-nlde there b a backlog of tieazly 1,000,000 

The tmuializadon costomer is diivctly impscted b^' the 
tTcmcndous backlog. Aoooiding to recent AILA statistics, it can 
take up to 27 months on averase to acquiic dtiacnship in San 
Diesel^ According to the same icpoit, it takes an average of 12< 
15 months to get an applicant tbtough the process in Los Angeles, 
San Francisco, and Miami. 

In response to this crisis, the Comcnissioner has declared this re- 
engineering initiative as a top prioritx*, with the objective being to 
eliminate the backlogs and reduce the overall INS c}-clo time 
dramatically. The Commissioner and her £.-uicut>ve leaders 
realize that this crisis cannot be mot iritfa eonventioTul solutions 
such as thro\\ing mote people at the problem. Thereibte, the)' 
commissioned a team to eompletoly rc-enginecr the entire 
naturalization process — fitm top to bonom. 

AILA -Rspcn Cat4 m (MS AdjuiUnaons.'* Match I99S. 

R»-engineering tmptomtniaUoo Plan 



Pcdedgntnf the 



PaiincrtMp Options 
vith Faralld Focus 

On April 1, in npid loqxxisc to die CaroniluiaBcr'i icqucst, tfac 
WigwiiUaBipn lU-EngiaeoilnB Team commcDOPd « 30^- "fitn 
osck" initiirtive. Jbc team iaehidod iqimeBtadaa ftnn tte New 
Yoik, Nowadc, Lot Aagokai, Kfiaml, Bahiinore, Haaahiln, md 
CtiJc*ao Ditfiict Offlow; tbs Cidifbmi« aad NduBika St nice 
Caom; 0D9 of tt« naiaBal ndoDs; md HQ (PnbUe AfUn, 
EiTBnihiitiooi^ nd IRM). To cusuic that die cSbit ftned pooplc ' 
to look fi» oQo^iyAtkxBal (oh4kia» aad to iMiik "to of tfao bwi;* 
pnifualomlf fiom PRC, Inc. Korp ooati?ctcd to piovido 
ptofbndaod cnpc{tiic. Tho tcan ym frcUiMBd by Budncii 
Fniccu Re-£(a{iaccdns nd Cbaige MmBOoutfcaqati fion 
PRC Wbbm foiir wetiu' tiiH), tliD gnnip ognipkled lltt fcOon^ 

^ Idsatifiod dio "^ It" oatnialLnidan ptooctt. iodufins 

pcribmuDCQ incantes; 

■ •> AMCStod 4u: cnnan prooeu mi cmnrnt cjBvinxoincnt 

(pcopio, tocboolog)-, ftcQitics, paMonuToeodsX 

•» BiafautpnnedaloQgtcnntifiionofnaoinlizxtion; 

n Bnnmotined abort loan rquicklutsliKtioiuthiii 

provide imniodiatc bowfit; md 
f DcSoed aa Inplcmaitician Plm to txanahico fiom tho 
cuiiuil csviiootDcnt towards piDgreinvc impiovemcou 
md Hia uldmato vldon. 

Tltc iqtAnpble icnhi of die ftiur net^ efibn i>n M impoitut; 
tbc)' indnde: 

•> Providkig Icadctlhqi tad muuiuuluai; 

» Acibicving bny-in torn n Mghly nipmanadvc en»s> 

iccdon of INS icpitscalatives fixnn the field, resioiis, aod 

" TtMufoiming tlio way INS employoci look at the 

oatoiatizstioQ misiiioii aod die way INS conduct* ha 

n Sowins die toods of a ocw INS cultnie. 


Sitnuh9icout nd istcsratcd widi the cffoits of the BPR Team, 
titc INS oonvoaed a taam to look at tfao potd^ &r dnBaadcally 
incrcadsg oomnndiity ioTolTCRicnt in die iWlwaHrrtoa piooou. 
Tliia t9«D la lod by a ii;iipaeiit«ive fiom dM HQ PoU^ and 
pJanuDs oiBanlzadoa. OnsovcndoocNiaaaifaoCoinmiuioacr 
panicipitodiotiiitdStn. UtoMmviattedkeyooBiiiiuDitiMto 
wodc widi Sorvlen FiDvider OQsniztfiaoi (o«, CBOn, NOOa, 
vobntao' aiBaoiiP^tkDa, Conunimhy ooUcso) to idcotii^' 
capadt}-, tc$nIatoi>', SnfQcial, legal, and niaiioQ^p itcaet diat 
Qood to bo additaaod. Tbc icsnhi have bean imenvovca into tin 
Rc-£pgi]ioaioB teara'i wotk to prodom a mon o ortiprrhm »i>'e 
IjosprcmaitadoQ Plan. 

Re-engirmofing Impicmcmation Pm 



i 0p management 
commitment h very 
ztrong and very 

A value system based 
on customer 
r.ittitfaaloa Is not 
pracndj bnUt tr,to 
aaiuralivnion tvorA 

In the comic of ssiesdag tfao cuiiBtt envinmncm, the 
NitturaUzadon Rc-EoginceiiflO tctra looked objfldivtJy mi 
naiUstically st tbc emmcMst of INS tam9sa.taA, bdiavion 
r>i4 vRincs. *m ndbusv, OM of todpoloey, inUI tmsiacss ^^ 
lladls ^Kssmcait td^ 10 Moolii^'fbc cnWon 9^ 
oistTdtfain the INS culture. Tlw cmUcti will bo wefid Icvcn 
tiM can bg oploitod to CDtuit ilat fht impkmcawioa pisoo 
nuaniBiai momciitttni, guwiitos cnBtt oa gat, Rid ylcMs snoocss. 
11k banicTj «c kc)' to oadantndiag tbe Und* of iKon thA will 
tavciobodMihwftfadMiBglfagliiiplnincntationpiMap. Anotbor 
ptapoMofnctainaiaeainQatiito'&oBiotdity.'' Itbiiivonsm 
duff cvciyaacftake nook of tbo jncssat ctilinraf mut cuvhowncaail 
bPseUne, ao tbA ii n| >ro vcmciai cm be mcaaoacd objoodvdy. 

Tlic foOoning anesimcnt ia ofEeivd b>- PRC to provide n 
objective^ ndftroal viciv of die INS [utunUadoD] cultnie lod 
alvuunmcat. It is intended to be ucd in a poifd-rc manncT — as • 
pbtfbnn upon Tvfaidi improvcmcats can be cucfiilly targeted and 
caicfuU)- pinned. While coe can aiwaya find enceptionfl to ray 
generalized fUtcmeat, wc. do ace acme pjwnUing trends: 

1 ) Top managcmcat commhincnt is vcij stroofi rad vciy visible. 
Iba Commissioner is lelcntlesa and outspoken in her 
oominitiiicnt to impravlag INS senriees and nuning dignit}' 
sad fiiimcss for ayil Atture oitiseot. This is (ibsolutely critieal 
fi>r success of the tC'CDg^cciiDs dSbtt 

Tho Assod^ic Conunissioocr of Ennniiiations, his q>ccial 
assistant, and the hhitur^fcnitian Bimch Chief are excellent 
choices to can)- this biiti(Kive forewd, baaed on iboir strong 
Icaderriiip Abilities. As best t^v can tell, INS has good Uaion 
Icadcnhip, and Union icpirscntadvcs arc ioteicstcd in 
paftneiing v^itfa INS to bring about positive efatoges: The 
Union pro\ided a vcrj- taaowlcdgeftble teprasentative to 
participate on the Xetsa . 

2) . A value ftystan based on castoma ssds&ctioa is not prescndy 
built into aamnllxatiaa work practices. Much like other 
govcmmcct agcadet, the INS hns mora of s> Internal than 
cxtcisiil focus. Intomal INS omploycta — ratbcrdunthe 
immignnt appUeaal — are often viewed as the costomer. 

Rt-englntaring (mplomanlaiion PUm 



There It a 
cpponunity to 
ktvoh-a out$Ufc 

The nanraliiofion 
procai Is based on 
outdated tyork 
fragmented tasks, 
GGccJs/tv kend-e^s 
and f Kor£3, 
dupRcete data cnnj, 
dupBeeu cheching, 
ciging tcdtnalogy 

PeifomuDcc ifipRdnls, rcivaniU, casccr IwUca, aid 
wpik^np nractnea ate pmcntly lotcnMOy (boned to 
survive Ui the DidhiaDal forcnnncait wotlqdMe. Ibey fttc not 
dongopd to tcwatd tboio ^ pitf cnitoBicr iriii&ctloa abov« 
9U eljff:; nor ne ifaey (ieripiAl to nrmd imiovcika asd 
cScaiTOUs. FiDosu poibinisace ai«iif(ucs MC not deiigmd 
fiQmtfacaKtanKr'iTicHpoifit 'PorcEompIfl,tl>eINS 
raej<uR7 Ac nmnber of i}ip]icadaDi diey proocn, but docs 
not bAve KCBaacmettDBi of hiw long m qiplieot vrtHi 

stre STTon in. - 

INS petmnnei htvo ya to feUy tip co uuuunl t y roto B foa to 
pUy » moc Ktive role in the natPrtlbation proows. INS 
pcTTcnsd often tct Scmco Pnmdcn m too d c m« ndh)B , nod 
M advettaiici bistead of m ooUcagMfi vrbo than aoommon 
309I gf serving the isunignmt cw:tamor. Distinctions twt^vcn 
cRporiqa<93, high-ijiuUty Service Providcn and cxp]oit«tiv« 
"itmni$riajcin consuhants" arc nrdy made.. 

Tbe INS docs txx provide nftnoKtioa to ^vpUcmts or 
conuDwit}' biued oisaoixslQos in ft thnel}- and ntcfol way. 
"Wliilc A lew Disnict DiiEOon and INS sMBfhsvc developed 
cfEcoive TVQiking rdxlio&sh^ ^vith certain Sciviec Providcn, 
there is ixtiie ovcnU guidaoce or loadcnhip in this ana, nod 
not much uodcrstzadn^ of the stntegic benefits of huildbig 

The Dxtuializaitian pTPoess it baaed on outdated woik 
practices. Dtuisg tb« 1930^8 Frodcrick Taylor pnsmotsd the 
uacmbly line approach to expedite mass maanftctiTting. Ihis 
ic^ultcd in dcq)ly fngmeotcd taudcs where each "station" 
specializes in some sdniita aspect of the ovcnll tack. We 
obscrvod the smoc t)^^ of task Sr»$pnaitstion at die INS 
Pii^ct QSecs and Servioe Cootjns. 'WhUs this high degree 
of Job spcriaH prion |uavidcd ohnous benefits for 
m mju J]»amotilnfec 1930'a, ^ktc are sevcrd disadvantages to 
Inlying this o^pnmeh to a scrviv^-orleittc^ptoecn inch as 

fie-Sngln»»r1ng fmplemaate(ion Plan 



A 78-min 14 u process 
h (ak'tng 12-15 
months elapsed time 

Pint, 8od mon impaiUat, is tb9lnhcTcnt impact on the 
cujtDmcr. No individinl onployee is icipaiuible for cniuiing 
castomcr satif£)Ction in tfaii model. Our revie^^- of INS 
Cuftomcr Sfsiis&ction Snvoy rcsnlts indicated a ttigh 
psrccmbigc ofcustoncn itIiobg maia conqilalnt ts tbal Acir 
Tppiintion becgncx lost in the cystein md oo one knows 
r^cxcbis. Fnnbajnato, h tvkes in InoRUmts fimonnl of 
tiincto''i;ctbbcj;Jnlioc.'' Onr team fv»9 not ^le to find 
«vidaio« tbflt 3U f^iusttknuvic tntckod tmfivhcre witlilD ti>c 
INS to mrice suie that ^b«y /Bc cvcntuaDy piQocsscd and 
accounted for. 

Ihn aocond disadvantage ii^lbA higjbly flugmcmorf and 
WHipaiti A m oiUaed usics la«d to tU^ mnberof hand-ofb 
(when woiii ItTJlMsicd fnasa ono individaal to mother) and 
queues (^cic Kodc !i pilcfi up vraitiiig for somcono to 
prpctss it). Wc learned of instmces whcic applications are 
placed in'mall cntes that are moved as many as 10 times 
bdbrr tiidbr processing is eon^letcd. 

Aging icchnolog}- preehules many of the cfiSdcncics that 
modem ixy businesses havo latcco advuntage of for the last 10 
ycNi. The natiirali?wioa.prpcc« i» ttill vciy pqjcp-intqisivc, 
?iith little axitonuEtcd cent detection and collection to taloe the 
place of dnpliciite and ttipUcate choddng of infcnnfliaa. 
Mnhiplc, non-integiBtcd l^cacy systems require duplicate 
caa>- of the sane infoimaiion (c.g., CtAIMS; WXCS, CIS, 
RAFACS. FBI jrad Militar)- infmrnation reqwst). 

A 78-miQutc process is taklnfi io long sis 12-15 months 
elnpscd time. Ovrtcam^ddcduptbccjclctimc&r 
pcifonning each of the steps of the naturalization process. It 
is sianling to rcaliic that the actwd processing time (exclusive 
of the 60 da>' wait fijr FBI responses and the 45 day "due 
dLiligenw" period for A-filc s<^ai^<») is l^n tbsn two hours. 
As dmnatjc m tins may soimd, the INS cannot oontinae to 
conduct busneu this way if they are to keep tip vntfa the 
projected demand. 

D:Mliorthc78-ffllaotce>cleliiD9 9npn7l4«din«wnf«Rcstilkd'lle«l1iia30]Hv«; Fj o - B ag hirn 1n| tlie 
HatunilizxtionProc«*t,''<iitodMa>'l995. C>-ele timet ciudha«dsiMiac]adQtb«fi<MR}-«ili(btrBeoidtbcsks 
^fl»4S^*daedUl|aiea'' period. Tl>cfataiefifawtqrdettocifaiio Mn « BU < ACTUAL pwcaMhit 
iloo-HlMidaro. itin' (b not todiidB wsaiiog itaiet in qaoet or lnDd>off tbaes. 

Rti-Engheifrine ImplemonlaUon Plen 



Eqp/c/ca in the 
nnivrfor diangc 

;h& Year ZQQQ 

A New fyradlsm 

6) Ibc cmplqjreei tfait K« wcic cspoacd to in tlw fleM Bid at HQ 
meager for duogc. This wm voy mudi ia evidence ai tho 
RcEagnccdng Toms coDdncted ahc visit* to vroik vdth staff 
ftom tbc ILA Piltrict OflSct and CwUfiwnia Swvica Ccatci. 
SiznUsly (dndng Focm Grotqi viiitt) Sovioe Piovideii Id > 
LA, Chicago, and New YoA expressed « stroqg imeicat in 
expanding Aeir nlo in tbo nstmalixadon piDcwt. Tmm 
oi^aain^ons hxn poosdenblo tu^mtw t9 OSS'. 

Tbo R&-)9aie^tteciiQg trnn conducted odcnoive IniiAStoiming'' 
FCfsioDS to c::sploio (seativo sod innovadve ideas &r dmudeaUy - 
Jlnpraving Ac way tin IMS oonducta its business. Tlie piojcct 
v=mts' vitdon of oaBtnliaRlcia turns today's pmdigin iosidc* 
out— tlie digoity of Ibe q)pUc«at ttUI bo fbioinost in the minds of 
tiaosc Vfho assist than vA6i tin nstnializsdon proocu. 

inbc ]c3»] i;t«sdjBds for nStanlizsdon nill be maintained, btd tiic 
opcmional pn>c«4pies TvlU be ttnis^d to provide customer- 
oriented, timely, ooiulstcnt, nd piedictable sciviec. AppUcmts 
n-ill be given dioices about when and itow ibey wish to get help 
oomplcting tlidr finms, wtxa and how they wish to bo swon-io, 
:nd TActl>cr or not they wish to hftve a foroial ceitiiBlccto of 

All qjplieaats will continue to be QEsmiocd, however the number 
of cpplicrats ocTmlnod in a onc'on'oac intcrriow will decrease 
dmnntictJly. Individuals who have been formally odueated in diis 
eounto' (high siJiool or collqgc) nill not be subjected to English 
rad Civics tests. Loog'StBadiog imeipictsdona of eli^ilit)' iavs 
and icgulatip&s viiU bc reviewed to support the ro<nglnoeiing 
initiative, which is focused upon meedng the demands of tods^v-'s 
eligible custoincn. 

Mon impoitaatly, the c)'clc time Araf submission (to the INS) to 
approval \^iU be reduced to "same day scrvioe" for 80% of the 

Re-&glnt«Hng Imfilamenudon Plitn 



U.S. Department of Justice 
Immicntian tad Natunlization Service 


Mr. Sobezt Diegdman 

DiiHitQT, Jostios Pwfiiiiium-* Keview 

U.S. Dqwmuient of Jnffirn 

12di nd Penns^vuk Ave., N.W. 

Wishingtnq. D.C 2QS30 

Dear Mr. Diegdmin: 

The yvupoitf of thU lettg is to legoat yoar i Mldtwr m ca ti hTiiihi ns a. cnneat 
Tmiiiiftiitionaad Natmafiadfoa Sexvice iuULtfivo-diB le-en^UBering of the Difiirallratioo 
process— as a Seisveotioa Tjlm i ihny . 

VafnnTrrfifwi^ tliB last ttcp an afioi tabet tDwizds aeqainiie U.S. litirmtfilp , is 
cxudal oot colj to the in£vidaal ^ibo weda ft, bat also to tbe inteciJty of oar NadoxL 

reoidcntf g'*^ M q g w i i ii« T i f t i rm ji i( j»rfiii « f»»«t |]|j|t tf*** Secvioo will ivaily dodUe the 
nmnber of appHcarinm leoeived tfus fiscal jax (to 900.000) and ^riR xeoezve 800,000 
q^Iicatiau per year ia eadi of the nest two fisol yens. 

As yoo are aware. & team of 20 IcnoidedgcablB, ea^Kdeooed INS pennnnel from field 
ofBces, Regiooal Offices aad Hodqaaiten met recently fiv 4 weda to ^«>i " i " ^ tbe Service's 
Qstszai322tion irrpcffmuj ^ p^ m too to oottom. After caxcfiil anal vats ok cbi^q oonipooe^x ot 
the process, tbe team presented a-mnnber of innovativiB ideas £or iui^auvcoieat. 

I woold IDcD to ^ipiaadi tbesB zecommoidatiaQS ia tbD context of a Keisveatiaa Lib. 
The effort win fitttoocor at aboot six sites ow tbe ival 12-18 months, eaqiandhtg if these 
efibits prove nooessfoL At tJKse sites, INS will set new nistomer riandndi for service and 
present a nev, costaoer-onentBd way of piuu e uin g natnoBzation qiplications. A lab 
jfH>F ai> well-soitBd fiir tins Jond of *fl'*n'i it* 


1^ Bobett Dkgdinia 

Af «e awiit qiprovd lo — '■»'^**' the unnaUzuiaa tab, we axe iatSag a dttztv, 
rnniHrrmy oBTie— i ii MM i IjiMrf i l| i^ tut iimnJw£ «■* « Iiriw— pl^«| Hie daiter aad tom 
inriHnruiilp cbouIdbB rady iKttsiiBBS Kvenldi^s. 



^^^^^t^ JU^^i^^U^-f^ 




HAstnukLzzftrzcar mrbtzmo 

AnSDST 2, 1995 


Don Crocettl (HQBZM) 
Mike Aytes (HQADN) 
Tom Cook (HQADN) 
Dave Rosenberg (HQOPP) 

Immediate follow-uiff flnf^"" ^^^m^ 

1. Keinvencion lab status. 

check on status with DOJ amd try to facilitate 
primarily due to facilities, contracting and 
procurement issues that warrant Ismediate exemption to 
creating policies, regulations etc. 

2. Inter-program team. 

Identify representatives from applicable programs. 

3. Backlog plan worksheet. 

Prepare to help identify Jcey items necessary for 
development of backlog plans for each key city. 

4. Backlog Project site managers. 

Identify managers needed skills and experience to 
be detailed to each key city to coordinate project. 

5. Project Manager. 

Prepare memo designating Dave Rosenberg as the 
Naturalization Re- Engineering Project Coordinator, 
reporting to Don. 

Have Caamiasioner announce such at Key Cities 

6. Backlog Plan^ 

Finalize, to include getting all data necessary to 
identify order of key city iB^lementation and costs 
associated therewith. 



7. External personnel to support backlog project. 

Identify means in which to determine who outside 
support will consist of, i.e»v re-hired annuitant, 
temporary or term, new hires, and/or personnel detailed 
from other offices/regions. 

Intermediate data entry. Resolve contract security 
clearance problem. 

Clarify this process amd get with HQIRM to determine 
whether there is any other alternative as this 
intermediate process requires ongoing oversight of 
permament enqployees (labor intensive and costly) . 

9. NACS. 

Pursue update from HQIRM. Field dislikes 2 -month 
scheduling limitations and printing problems. 

10. Direct Mail. 

Determine schedule and site of eaqpansion. Try to 
support backlog initiative for LOS, CHI, MIA and NYC. 

Cost out addition of NYC. 

11. Co-op Agreement. 

Follow-up with HQCOU' to determine if DOJ is now 
supporting so that we can maJce a%rard ASAP. Also, get 
with HQOCR amd HQOPA regarding announcement of such 
awau:d and how we will deal with inquiries, educate 
Congress, etc. 

12. Training. 

Develop training plam aimed at providing on-site 

13. Rosenberg Contract. 

Get with Sandra Kopchik to find out %rtiat needs to be 
"gone to eactena David 's contract for co ordination of 
Natx. project . ~ 

NOTIt Attendees amd inter-program team will meet weeUy 
throughout re-engineering initiative. 

[Prepared by L.D. Crocetti, Jr. (HQBXM) 



SEP 181995 


Yow Responses: Bxecutive Synopsis, 
RC'Engiiieering the Naturalization Process 


To Piom 

BxecutiTe As50cUt« Commissioner OfSce of the 

for Reld Operations Commissioner 

Regional Directors 
District DirectoTB 
Service Center Directors 

Ali of you have been addressing OTerwhelming increases in naturaliaatioii 
applications for at least the .past nine months. Ik)r mAny, enormous pending 
numbers became a fact of life long before 1995. 

Naturalization is a key priority for IN&-both streamlining and better informing 
our customers about the process. Aoxtrdlngly, during the Spring, FRC, an 
experienced Q^tmagement consvQting firm with particular expertise in business 
process re-engiiveering, worked with a cadre of 20 INS staff representing both field 
and Headquarters. .During a 6-week period they studied the naturalization process, 
focusing on these issues: 

' Application processing essentials; 

" Customer-friendly approaches; 

3 Processing efficiency measures; 

" Role of technology; 

^ Potential for broader partnerships witti service providers; and 

n Other potential long-term reforms, Le., a vision for naturalization processing in 
the futiure. 

Tlte result of these weeks of intense deliberation is a report entitled Results in 
30 Dttys: Rt-Engineaing the Naturalixation Process. Attached Is the Executive 

FleAse review it with yoiu- staffs and provide confunents on the recommendations. 

Because of the urgency of our jnwrent caseload, I have directed that the existing 
naturalization applications backlog be given the Service's most immediate 
attention. A Backlog Management Plan is now being prepared. It will target 
iaitially the largest problem spots-Los Angeles, MiainJ, New York, San Francisco, 



jBxTcudve AssocUbe Commissioner 

fcr FieW OpexatiQjna 
Rcgioaal Directors 
District Directors 
Scrfice Center Directors 


sad Chicago. We wiU then apply the aanxe stringent effort to all other Districts to 
exijTjre that their caseloads arc effldently processed Wherever possible, we wfll 
u?c validated r&-engiheering tccluilqufes as outlined bi the PRC report to attack 
the caseload. 

My e-xpectatlcn is that over the next srvexal vears we will hone and sbreaxnlina 
sybstantiaUy owr naturalizatton effort^. With the help of new technology and more 
Sophia 'dca ted management techniques, we will Improve oux respomo to our 
grcwing dtizsnshlp-seeking customer ba$e. 

m responding to the Executive Synopsis of Results in 30 Days: Re-Engineermg the 
Niituralization Process, please bear In mind that 

(1) Tve must all assume ownership over successful re-designing of the 
nRturallzadon process; . 

(Z) wiiile the recommendations are only that, they offer a basic road map for 
change; and 

(3) if your staffs have additional ideas for addressing oxir present system, please send 
them with your responses. 

Responses should be forwarded through Regional Offices and sent to: Don Crocetti, 
Associate Commissioner for Examinations. If there are any questions, please call 
Tom Cook, Chief, Naturalization Special ProjectB, at 202-616-9007, 

Fkase forward responses by Friday, October 6, 1995. 


Doris Meissner 



ill From: Richard R Kellner ac ERO-MlA-002 9/21/9S 1:01PM (2135 bytes: 1 In) 
-iorlty: Urgenc 

i: Thomas Cook ac GroupWlse, David B Rosenberg ac HQ-007, Walter Cadman ac 
ERO-MIA-003, Valerie M Blake ac ERO-MZA-003, Blaine D Watson ac ERO-MIA-001, 
Mary Ellen Blwood ac GroupWlse, Alice J Smlch ac HQ-002, Lanl A Cafflllll ac 
ERO-002, Jeanne M Ray ac ERO-002, Louis Crocecci ac GroupWlse 


Message ConcenCs 

>xt item 1: TexC_l 

ERO-U02, Jeanne n luiy ai; luiu-uu^, ijouib ^.z^ocetti. ai. ut^ou^nxaB 1^9 
ibject: Naturalization Certificates /^, 
Message Concents -,./. tji . . 

I jusc goc off Che phone wich Trident St. Clair, a m2mager wich UKICOR 
(PH: 606 - 255,3810) in Lexlngcon, Ky. and generally Inquired abouc 
UNICOR preparing nacuralizacion cerclficaces. She appeared Co be .very 
interesced, and stated that she would pass Che inquiry on Co UNICOR 
headquarcers . My general is^ression was Chac chey would be eager Co 
do Che wor)c - she even mencioned Chac Chey had cospleced previous wor)c 
for INS (locacor cards) . 

If we wanted to do this, I can see two pocenciaXly problem areas. The 
firsc would be how Co do ic. AC the present tine Che certificates are 
prepared via the NACS system, and some people might not be comfortable 
with a direct data link to a federal prison. If that was a problem, 
possibly Che data could be compiled on disc and then forwarded to 

Secondly, and p'-">?flbly jfnrm difflculc, would be the piibllc relatione 

aspecc ot_havlng prlaong^ prcvliiffing nArurailgyl^lni^ ^erclf IcaCea- >5^ 

."sc. L'xair~wajited us to be aware Chat some o f her eigalo yees are illegal 
aliens . Nevertheless, I see noChing is^osslble' about this situation, 
amd believe that we should ImmediaCely follow-up on this possibilicy. 

Alice/Dave - Possibly you could chec]c wich che Commissioner emd see if 
she has any problem with this idea. If not, we need to do it ASAP. 



C32] From: Walter D Cadman at ERO-MIA'Q03 H/1S/9S 4:08PM (3668 bytes: 1 In) 

Priority: Urgent 


Raceipc Requested 

cc- Lani A Camilli at ERO-002, Carol D Chasse at ERO-002, Jeffrey M Weber at 

HQEXM OSA. HQEXM USA POST OFFICE 1:TEC00K at GroupWise, Valerie M BlaJce, 
Richard R Kellner at ERO-MIA-002,' William Ring 

Subject: Re: Furlough* - Citizenship OSA -Reply 

Message Contents 

Too late! We had wanted to do exactly as you suggest: cross-code their 
paychecks out of the Exams fee account, but we were advised by Lani yesterday 
that the official word from HQ was "no go* with regard to the enforcement 
detailees to Miami's Citizenship U.S.A. We were given the latitude to call them 
in and advise them, either yesterday afternoon or first thing this morning. By 
Che time we had gotten the word, they were mostly gone because our workday 
begins early here. So, they were called in first thing today, emd turned around 
to their hotels to pack and depart. 

The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that we also had enforcement 
officers from the district detailed into natz (immigration agents and special 
agents) . , Tho tas were furl ouqhed as nonessential, and the spec ial agents w ere 
3ut back to street duty consistent with the definition of~essential, that came 
5utl-Of the~aep«r tment , with re gard to protecting life and property and_enforcing 
:he law. 

■j»»HT j«« to aay. we're n ow screw ed i n teziu of the stacks of interview schedules 
ve had set out with them in mind. I don 't know how .w«. niil keep"up. . - the 
likeli&ed-i*^ E'i4C_we_will put. other _nAO« onto. citizeaghiE^^and^Iet" their own, 
asuai work (e.g., 245s) suffe r. 

R«ply Separator 

Subject: Furloughs - CitizensEip OSA -Reply 


Date: Xl/lS/95 10:19 AM 

Date: 11/15/1995 10:19 am (Wednesday) 
From: Louis Crocetti 

To: HQEXM CCQATB. 'Valerie M Blake at ERO-MIA-003' 


CC3aaL.ERO-002.Chsss« Carol 0, CCMAIL.ERO-003. Camilli 
Lani A 
Subject: Furloughs - Citizenship USA -Reply 

/alerie-Exams fee funded positions, ars of course, exempt the furlough, 
others, such as SAs, ars not. David just informed me that there are s 
lumber of SAs detailed to Citizenship USA and they may have to be 
returned to their offices to be furloughed. I instructed David to get 

Jeff Weber (HQBOD) about ths possiblity of charging SAs to the Exams 
?ee Accoxint. I fail to see how this wouldn't b« legltimsts given ths 
fact it is the typ« of work they are doing. If this is a go, w« sio^ly 


Auchor: Danial P May at BQ-00) 

Data: 3/4/»« «:3» PM 

Priority: Neraal 

TO: Patra M Hlllar at BQSDC 

TO: Alan Sbalton at BQBUC 

Subjact: Ra(2] : Belp a* gat Hatz raonay for Cltzaaahip USA 

........ .. .... . Maaaaga Contanta 


Our laat aatiraataa wara $3,509 (inelddlng tha JCOOK .x41 $$ apant lata 
9S) . Thay'va baan repaatadly aharad «/ Dava F and MaryBllan Ellwood. 
I'va avan approachad Larry Ball for aooia H for CDSA. I hava a 
docunant whara Chrla Sala 8/18/95 aaya 'funding for much of thla 
(CUSA) la authorlzad for Fy96. Additional funding will ba included in 
your 199C axaraa budgat propoaal'. Tha 13/95 'program inplementation 
plan' talka about 'Porvlda ADP and othar aupporting reaourcea to 
■itaa' containing an aaaunptlon'Punda will ba available from 
appropriate aourcea to proceedw/ equip, infra, and inatall servicea* 

I can't find anything that promlaea... only words like 'much' and 
'appropriate'. Dava told ma back in Dec that there waa nearly $5H in 
'the' budget for buildout, ADP, suppliea, etc. Leta juat atop til we 
get some reimburaament . That'll ga t aooaone'a attn. 

Reply Separator 

Subjact: Re: Help me get Natz money for Citzenahlp USA 
Author: Alan Shalton at BQBUC 
:ate: 3/4/9C S:SS PM 


Am I dreaming again? Ware you in tha room when she told me there waa 
a reprogranning of, I thought, $3.7 H that we could tap? Anyway don't 
stop putting together the figurea. Let me )a>ow when you are cloae and 
I will go see Jeff Weber. 

I keep getting the feeling that if anybody tails ma anything, I should 
aaauma it'a a joke or worse I 

Forward Header 

Subjact: Re: Help me gat Natz money for Citzanshlp USA 
\uthor: Petra M Millar at HQBDC 
3ate: 3/4/9C 5:37 SW 

Fernanda aaya tha only monev oof aibly a ^mllabla for repayment of tha 

m oney we spent on nnj im^^ ig pax sltar jr-caw am uu tJf CUBCinaUic v 

"tunda or leftover monay mm tha yr wla3S~a u » u. . . . ~ 

Poxvaxd Haadar 

subject: Re: Help ma gat Hats mooay for Cltsaaahip USA 

41-503 97-5 


rreai Thomas Cook 


Daeai 11/16/9S 10:24affl 



AM NOT) . 


'212 P F OTB~MAMg'' ail . CXs~7AfA COST OP-PR^UVBLY $1,000.000 PER YEAR) AND 








L«t m* Icnow i£ th«r« la any problm getting th« responaes sent to on* addrcaa. 
That ia th« firat laau*. 

Tha aacond laau* la par our eonvarsatian If you would follow up with tha FBI 
to aa« If thay will aort and ottil to 00* a tha naoM ehaek raaponaaa aa thay do 
tha fingaxpriat raapoasas. 

David/Mary Bllaa. FYZ 

Don/Mika - \9data - Z haw ee;ad you bacauaa at tba last OZO "fix it" maatiag 
Alax iadieatad IMlUtUT ia anauring that hita getting to tha raeord b* 
addraaaad. Z aa prapariag a raapoaaa to Id Hurptay en tha OZO iaaua. 


cct LDciociT, tojccaa, xmotwn, vaxutoao, umdrpht 



TO: Famanda Voxmg 

ni: Mlka Aytas 

SOB: Xaquasc a awaap o£ iOCS co allow aehadullng of certain eaaaa 


Tha Dicact Mall o£ HrMQ appllcacloaa Co ■arvlea caacara la tha jurladlctloaa of Loa 
Aagalaa, Naw York, -Chicago and Miami bagan on Fabruary 1, l»»€. Tha applieationa pandlng 
daca antry ac chaaa diatrlcta wara ralocatad to tha raapactlva larvlca eantara. Tha 
dlatriet offiea waa inatm ctadjo atrip tha FD-asi fingarprinc carda from tha applieationa 
and forward chaaj:o^Cha~cffitgfI' for" "procaaaing. Policy inatructiona and standard ' 
oparacing' procaduraa wara providad to .tha diacrict offieaa and sarvlca eantara, and 
training on tha data entry of 11-400 'a into tha autooatad syatam waa providad to tha ^ 
eantara . 

A quality r aviaw of tha transition racantl y diac loaad that tha aarvica eantara wara not 
an^ASing.a 'sanc to tha FBI* syatan notification indicating tha FD-2St carda ' had'baan 
t ant to t ha FB I in part ^ua^ to tha local offica_aubaaaaion of car da to tha FBI, and 
partly duate tha initial^ cenfua ion of ioplaiiianting a naw precaaa. A a aoon aa t hia waa 
diacovered, tha eantara initia ted t raining and conducted audita to anaura all carda had 
been~f orwarda^ to tha FiT I The caaaload included new eaaaa received and stripped ac the 
eentari"and~6ldar eaaaa that had been atripped aC tha diatrieta and forwarded to the 
eentera. Tha canter diraetora and diatrict office naturalization managers have affirmed 
that all eaaaa received ac the cencera or sanc to the eentera from tha districts were 
stripped and tha carda forwarded co the FBI prior to data antry. T he critical problem a t 
hand ia ehae thea a eaaaa cannot be ac hedul ed f or intervlew^ue to che adic_feacura which 
preel ua»« *iigibilicy for ineerview jf' cSa-ayaceBidoea not acknowledge chatnth«_J" 
'fingarprinc card waa aend Co the FBI. Abaanc chia ayacam update to cerracc tha alcuation, 
w« w4Uia &AV4 Co manually^update approximately 84,000 record*. 

To permit cheaa eaaaa co ba acheduled for interview ac tha diatriee officea BQIRM is 
requeaCad co run a ayacam sweep and updaea che subjecc flag co 'yea* on all t(-400 
applieaciona encered inco MACS from tha four direct mail sitae starting February 3, 1.99C, 
where the system notification Indicataa that Che FO-2S8 was received buc noc updated chac 
tha card waa aenc co che FBI. To ensure che processing sCandarda are maincained ic is 
requeaced chat a appropriaca aaayle of eaaaa ba prepared en ca pe a nd chaC che_FBI^be 
requeacad co run cha IKS capa againac chair dacabaaa co produce a Use "of"~mae chad cases 
r eceived by che FBI co support our pcaition chat che eaaaa have bean forwar ded co che FBI. 
IC ia a lso requeaced on. a peat audit baaia Cha t a capa of^ all eaaaa be run againic tha~~~ 
FBI data baaed and tha eaaaa not matched will ba audited to datermina~~what appropriate 
action sho uld ba taken jeejeaaura tha integrity of tha proceaa la maintained. 

Thia raqueat ia deemed to ba within acceptable proceaa iatagrity atandarda and is 
deaigDatad a priority by PregraaM and Plaid Oparationa aa tha four subject sitae are 
^ Hearing a criaia aituatioa regarding eligible easaa to ba scheduled for interview. Thia 
'^ results net only ia lost preductlea, but loat productive time of teoverary aovleyaaa and 
detailed ataff oa aita to addraaa the naturalization application baeklega. 

If you hava any quaatloaa plaaaa contact Thooaa Cook, Chief Maturalixatioa Branch, at 
514-S014. Thia raquaat ia coaeurrad with by VQ Field Oparationa. 

Mika Aytaa 


%^ J. yf \^.^ The Untied Neighborhood Organization of Chicago 

125 S. Hoisted. Suite 203 ■ Chicaso. il. ttOtt6l-Z'll} i3l2i ■i4l-l3liO Fax lSI2) 4-il-HVo 

President Bill Clinton 
The White House 
Washington D.C. 

October 27, 1994 

Dear President Clinton, 

Thank you for your recent dinner invitation. I enjoyed talking with you. Bill Daley and 
Harold Ickes about the tremendous opportunity that natxiralization represents. 
Following up on our conversation, I have enclosed a sunimary that reiterates the several 
points we discussed over the course of that evening. 

The number of legal permanent residents that become eligible for citizenship over the 
next two years has the potential to make a large civic impact if those obstacles that hinder 
them from applying for citizenship can be overcome. The Chicago Model outlined in the 
enclosed document represents an easily replicated solution to this immigration issue. 

The graph that I've also enclosed illustrates that the largest number of Amnesty 
applicants become eligible to apply in December of 1995. We have one year to streamline 
the naturalization process in order to accommodate these potential citizens. 
Implementation of a nationwide effort to naturalize permanent residents where they are 
most concentrated should begin no later than the first quarter of 1995. The opportuxiity 
to balance immigration policy and tackle the issue of naturalization in a proactive 
manner should not be overlooked. 

Again thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and discuss this issue. Your 
interest is greatly appreciated. I look forward to your response. 

Daniel S. Sdlis 

President /Executive Director 

cc Bill Daley 
cc Harold Ickes 


Naturalization Potential in 1995 and beyond 


The Opportanity ^ 

By 1996 5.5 million legal permanent residents in the United States will be eligible for 
U.S. Citizenship. This number represents the largest number of eligible permanent 
residents under the tenure of oiw Administration. 

Approximately 3.1 million of these people became permanent residents through the 
Immigration aiul Reform Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), also known as the Simpson- 
MazzoU Law or the Amnesty Law. By their experience with the amnesty process, 
which employed a similar testing mechanism and standards as the naturalization 
process, these permanent residents need only fulfill the few, final requirements for 
citizenship, namely completion of the N-400 application and a final interview. Th e 
iargog »^niiqihpr< nf these le f^ al permanent residents reside in a select groupin g 61 
" uroarTareas: 

• Chicag o 

• Nejtiork-City 

• L^_^Dgeles 

• ^liam i 

• Te xas: El Paso, S an Antonio , Houston. 

Of the additioiui 2.4 million people who received their permanent residency status 
through traditional channels, the majority are required to renew their Alien 
Registration Cards before the March deadline set by the INS. The cost and 
application to renew these cards are almost equal to the cost and application for 
naturalization. In our experience once their fears of the naturalization process are 
overcome, these residents forgo renewal and opt for citizenship. 

An integrated campaign that targets this predominantly urban population has the 
potential to natviralize over a million new citizens. 

Naturaltfation is a key issue in regard to the em powprmpnt and stabiliy-ation of the 
immigrant pop"i* Hf»n< i»^ thi< rnnnhry 9hifji^ show that naturalized dtizcns are 
more apt to act in ways that fenerate positive growth in the economy, increase 
political activity, and support overall community development. Over 90% of 

^^ ^ I pijyaH riHgpn<| rfg"*-' >« "«h1 | « fr^Mrh higher r ate than US. bom dtizeris . 
Their record of increased dvic participation is exemplary. The potential dvic impa ct 
of these New AmericarM is gre at, but "thesg people must become dtizens betore tne y 

' "Become vQtgra. 

Recognizing this potential, UNO has focused its efforts primarily on naturalization, 
developing a program strategy aimed at addressing the issues that^limit^ttie rates of 


The Obsudes 

What is keeping these people from becoming citizens? 


People are not invited into the process nor is the process inviting. We believe this 
situation results from policy drift aiul is not by design. The following obstacles limit 
naturalization potential: 

• intimidation that stems from a common negative perceptiort of the INS 

Previous immigrant groups were assisted by "mediating institutions," 
such as political organizations, unions, dvic organizations, and 
churches. A greater collaborative effort existed between the INS and 
these institutions, and potential citizens were wooed into the 
"Americanization" process. In contemporary times, however, the INS 
is seen largely as an enforcement agency and in the experience of these 
permanent residents, something to be feared. ConsequenUy few seek 
the assistance of the INS, although many desire citizenship. 

• administrative delays at INS 

In our experience application processing through the INS can take up 
to a year. This delay is uimecessary. The current mechaiusm cannot 
adequately process the numbers of permanent residents that become 
eligible for citizenship each year. The perception of the service arm of 
the INS as an enforcement agency is supported by budget allocations 
toward naturalization. CurrenUy the INS commits only 10% of its' 
annual budget to naturalization. ConsequenUy, those that overcome 
fears of the INS and seek citizenship are thwarted at the administrative 

The Chicago Model 

The Kiidwest Regional Office of the INS, under the direction of Mr. AD. Moyer, has 
developed an innovative strategy that challenges these issues. 

The current outreach program for naturalization in Chicago has effectively changed 
the INS' image in the eyes of many permaiwnt residents. The following points are 
key to its success. 

• "Linea Abierta," ti\e popular show on the leading Hispanic station 
Channel 44, was developed by Mr. Moyer ai\d Ms. Connie Lara to 
provide ii\formation, education and depolarization on issues of 



• A community-based naturalization process developed in 
collaboration with community organizations like UNO, allows 
applicants to complete the application process and take their interviews 
at a local neighborhood or community institution. This model 
replicates the collaborative relationship among mediating institutions 
that has previously proven effective in bringing thousands of 
immigrants into the citiz^hip process efficiently. 

This Chicago Model is important to any policy adjustment concerning 
naturalization because it demonstrates the success a partnership between these 
mediating ixutitutions and the INS can have. Churches in particular have played a 
key role in the success of the Chicago Model. Churches have devoted much time, 
energy, and human resources in support of this program. Their involvement 
further underscores the level of community interest in naturalizing these large 
numbers of permanent residents. 

The Model is also significant because it has uncovered new mediating imtitutions, 
like banks and other financial institution, who have a keen interest in assisting 
new citizens. Fannie Mae, which has pioneered the "New Americans Initiat^e" as 
part of its Trillion Dollar Iiutiative, has also demonstrated participatory interest 
Finally, the success of this model has spurred the Mayor of Chicago to establish a 
municipal Naturalization Commission to facilitate this process as well. 


To make these solutioi\s complete and comprehensive, my recommendations are as 

• Increase resources allocated to naturalization, in terms of persoiviel 
and updated equipment. 

• Replicate the Chicago Model in other central dties. Assist local INS 
offices in working witfi local community organizatioru to recreate 
networks of mediating institutions. The Industrial Areas Foundation 
(lAF) in Los Angeles aiwl Texas already has extensive church networks 
in place to carry out this type of campaigiL 

• Emphasize the urgency of a nationwide iiaturaiization effort in order 
to take advantage of the Alien Registration Card renewal deadline. 

Other ideas include: 

• Iiutituting electronic application filing, such as the IRS has recendy 


Ciiizensliip I'oltnliel. Barriers and Alliludtt Ainont Laiinot i" Cliieago 

-^ QL 
LU — 

< CO 





CL 1- 








<> 1 


— 1 



b < 1 






















O CO 1 













X i 











I LnUrd Seishbcrhood OrfaizatiQii "I Chicaxo (1992) 



J " 


• Changing the exanunation procedure. 

• Changing the language requirements. 


Several key people are aware of the opportunity that this represents. They include 
Commissioner Doris Meissner, A.D. Moyer, Faniue Mae's Jim Johnson, Chicago's 
Mayor Richard M. Daley, key members from the lAF, Charmel 44 General Maiuiger 
Jos^ Lamas and from UNO, myself. 

A meeting with these individuals, either together in a group or separately, to discuss 
these suggestions further would prove fruitful. I believe that these policy 
adjustments are feasible and worthwhile. 




TO: Lee Ann Inadomi 

OfBce of Cabinet Afibin 
FROM: Robert L. Bachjt^ 

Executive Associate Conunis^ioner, Policy & Planning, INS 
DATE: July?. 1995 

RE: Letters from the President to Newlv Namralized Citizena 

You have asked us for information concerning the possibility of the President writing 
letters to newly naturalized citizens. This proposal raises several operational and policy issues 
which are discussed briefly below. I understand that discussions on this matter are still in a 
preliminary stage, and, accordingly, this memo does^not attempt to explore exhaustively all of the 
legal and policy implications such a decision would ;aise. 

Current Practice _ 

o Newly naturalized citizens, in most instances, already receive a letter from President 

Clinton addressed 'Dear Fdlow American.* (See copy attached.) These letten have been 
handed out to new citizens by INS at naturalization ceremonies around the country for a 
number of years, although there is usually a gap when a new administration takes ofiSce 
until the new president's letter is signed and distributed to INS ofiBces. 

o Upon request, INS also prepares individualized letters from the President to newly 

naturalized citizens. These requests are usually forwarded to INS fix>m the White House 
Agency Liaison OfSce. 


In fiscal year 1994, over 500,000 people naturalized, and the number will be closer to 
600,000 in fiscal year 1995. Projections for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 continue to rise. 
Contacting all of these people would require a substantial investment of resources. 

At present, INS does not hive a prognin to generate a master list ofnames and addresses 
of newly naturalized dtizena. ^rr""" " **'y ""^ j-*""*^ nfth» itM4n«/4ti«i« ttanrnK-rmA 
have their ninw and address captured in an automated system (NACSX wUcfa can b« 
accessed both by beadquaiters and field offices. The other 30 percent are not part of an 
a utomate d syiteni, and their names and addresses are available only through paper records 
in INS field ofBces. Some INS ofiBces where records are automated are experieociag 
agoificant time lags between the date of naturalization and the availability ofnames and 

Potential ProblcaH 

o A pioposal fix INS to fiirwiid the Mmes and addresses ofnewly naturalized citiaens to 


the White House rmes Privicy Act concerns that would require legal review in the 

conteact of * specific pla n. INS discontinued providing lists of naturalized d^iyfi n To 

" appfopnaie Menftcn ot congress sonie vean ago because of Privacy Act^onem a. 

A White House inhiitive on contacting newly naturalized citizens, sep arate from the 
natiirallTation ceremony, might be criticized as campaign politic* in antidpfl ^nn nf th» 
"1 396 election. 


Co ntinue the current practice of having INS present letters from the President to newly 
*nituiralized citizens as part of natiiraliration ceremoni5~ 





TO: Jo« Cuddifay and Tom Cook 

FROM: Btiban Strack 

DATE: July 12. 1995 

RE: FoOow-UD on White House Request Concerning N« tiir«|iatinn IifflCTI 

Since we're all in and out of so ouny meetings, I thought it might be bdpfiil to put these 
follow-up questions in writing. 

1 . With respect to the individualized leners to newly naturalized citizens that INS 
prepares upon request: ^-^ ,,^ .^^^ . ^^ ^^^^ ^ ^,^ ., 

/^ ' i"oiM.<: .■c.i"ff% 

- are these actually personalized letters signed by the President? (Or, for example, are 
they personalized letters from the Commissioner attaching the President's standardized 
"Dear Fellow Citizen" letter?) fd'o.-r'^.-.- '-i .^-^ v:\..-vo,v ujro^c. ^cv' '.; ■ v v 

- can we identify vAio such letters go to, by types of recipients or types of requesters? 

- .. T^ai+ tevT>* CVts-n Cc^-i,, o-Cfcci . ■T^ ^y '. . ' -'••4>,n »o Wrt +o< o n. : „■. 
-^W -za-'-cs -l>n«vv> Wrre, rt^a,--*'**! 

- what IS the approximate volume of such requests (even a ballpark estimate, e.g.. 2 per 
month or 100 per month?) J-5 ^r t.-^ "■> 

2. Do newly naturalized citizens get any kind of penonalized letter from an INS official • 

the Commissioner? aDD? Up Ao *>-c sreVe-'-'t ^-^ '>«. ^■'.•c*.^ ofCca., 

4. If the White House decided tomorrow that it wanted to implement a policy of writing 
to newly naturalized dtizais, how long would it take for INS to supply them with the names and 
addresses to do so? Assume (0 that we only have to supply automated data, and (u) that vit have 
to supply all names & addresses. ^■^.| '<*,(, ;. -. /' ;. .''.' . rl- 

rd like to get responses back to the White House by the end of the week, if possible, so 
please feel free to call me with the information rather than taking time to draft a memo. Also, 
please call if you'd Oke to discuss this, or if the time fivne is unrealistic. Thanks. 

V -.^v^^-cV.P,*^ (or T>aT/lvJ< *« rr<-,.v^. .^••.•-•My ,1 >?<«N»^ -VV^/ .oo-V* ^c 
Vft.V e o.-. «Mi;.V»»» »AN. m.i^'-i\c<*\ jaacao - ■■iiii too ^e^r .^< -/'or. 























HQOPS, 202/514-0078 OR CRAIG HOWIE, . HQADN, 202/514-5014. 

r n iiiT T iTiiiiTi T ren pn f WB»n ^ 
Uu.5 \ C.;^ac«ttf,ae. 


.v.-^.^ eTf ("(«•. 

MM Ha 








Anchor > xaxyn Oubla ac CTO-OC-001 
MMi t/37/«f liSS fM 

yrloxi«yt ■ocaal" 

xoi Bom n&.Bomi on von orrxei itcsaown •« anapaiM 
oei o*Ti4 B KDMBbarg at a»-0(n 

tOi SeoCt O MfTlnf •« aOMBB 

TOi lr«n<i X rvilav •« no-ooi 

ce> aQsai nx-WQUM on fOR omc* itmifonp m crespai** 

cc: BonDt USX.IVIM vn rocr oma iitsoook m axaapMiM 

CCi Dala ■ •wwdara u lft-007 
Subjaect m«i Mat's mm. L«tt«r 



AB aj tpad i fd t*qa««t waa plaead vith Bgns ea July 2S, 
19fS. teeerdiag to IaCo fsoa IQ «ha aspsecad ahlp data la 
ll-«-9l. Qaaatlttaa ordaxad ara 1,000,000 for Iaa« aad 
700,000 for naac. Aeeertfiag eo yoar Info thla la going eo 
ba an laaoftlelaac aaeutt. Xf ye** caa gat aoaa prejaetad 
uso flguraa for lYVt aa aantlesad. Z will plaea a aau ecdar 
wiui BQ upon raealpc o< lafo f a x i oi i. 

Any aetica to obtala prlatlag aeeaar, or Ineraaaa tha 
quantity of euzrant erdar, i^wld haTa to ba eeerdlnatad 
through tha 8Q print shop. 

wa split enr ateck with HTC a aosth or aa age aof hava alaea 
depletad tha raaalniag supply. 


Datat 0»/27/i»»s 07iU aa (Hadaasday) 
rroa: Craig Bowia 

TOI Braada X, caOZL.BQHBB. Eastings 

sco«t o, ccM]UZ..Slio-xre-001.0able Karya 
ect TZOOQX, CCMhZL. 00-007. Xoaaabarg David B, MEXLHOeo 
Subjaeti Bat's Pras. X,a«t«c 

Braada, Xarya 6 seotts Z raealTod a call froa Bob Battla, tos Bats, 
yastarday. Ba was raportlng that thay vara alaost oat of tha cilataa 
lattar for aatnraii a a t ioa iiaiaiiilia and that tha HBToraa Caotax had a 
baekordar raqoast of war 700,000. Ba aetad that thay aspaet to aats aC 
!•««« 31,000 by tha aad of tha ralawday yaar. Xt nroxaa baa aoy actra, 
can thay ba ahippad a«« Bast? Oir U thaaa a>o a« ordar Cor raprmtiag, 
eaa this raguast ba bo^ad op la tha liaar 

Ttia iTy—mi'i"»i a goal la to natnrall»a 1.2 ■lllloa paraaa la rW. ha d 
aa you know, t ha Bhlta Bouaa la rathar iaalstant that tha ClUitoa lattac 

.6a ' ■ ; 

dlstribatad to aaeh aay cttltaa. I do net think aay of ua waat to bo 

eaagat shecT: riaaaa lot aa taiow if that* la aaychiag tha p ro graa eaa do 

to balp with thla, and alae what eaa bo deno to halp e«t LOB. Also, 

•c^ of tho folks oa tha Cltltanahlp OBh taaa aay ba ahla to balp tha 

oantara projaet tha dlstrltootloa niiabara of this Xectar fee tha flva big 


offleaa for m*. Thaaka. Ckaig Wmtlm 


l^ J^V f^^ Th e United Ntishborhood Organization of Chicago 

ScytcmiwliL 1995 ~ ^ A 

>:«« Lkly HUbiy KndhamOiMta 


1600 naMytvania Avenue 

WotbiagiMi. li.C. 30S4XI 

UcarMs. KodhamOiMoa. 

Followtaa an nur owvmmimm mi JMinOar. ScMtmher 1 7. 1 am aknint yni to ite newcM opnAmmtay rtui h« 
pKjcniaJ Iwcif tn UNO'« Aahc OtltiMMif Caa^fn. Bawd «« (tw mimher and ^lalliy oT UNO'i nuunlixatM* 
innlJcalMiiU. m icH a».llJ«T» cdViBm iwtneacb. kcal awl nqpiixai INS ankiak h«»c am<nwched-t'Nl) wuh iJk 
upfmiuaMy lo panidraw ia j fikit pm^mii whicii mulil im >irati:yic[i ihal riinxily aiMccu the cunvm naiuretizaiitM 

KK-uKine tia Mmcyksk 1(191 aU«><» n»«i-r»»»wiimciiial <iivaoi/3iiin!. m aisuiiv ihc dcocal hMlfc «•(' ih« luuutaliraino 
pniGOK. ihsi ptiM wiH unaMc Ihc IN5 i<i i<ru« Malfon njitirjii/aiiiin i-asc icvicw. tvNTicr paiml an(l<iih«r pritiritio. 

Tlw pitiil will mil inly iiiii«u 3|tplicuiu ihrauf b (tu rnvv>s m^ quickly and eniduMly. hw it ciuNc* ihc INS la 
«Uie« the miUiom iii'naniniizaiiiiii :4tptiain«iiR'|vmlin( iwiiiinwiih: and Miilachiew: CmnmiNaancr l>iwis Metaour's 
{•tial iiri2a day lunanwmL Wc Ndii:^- thai ihn pili* will ilnMiciily icducv iltc liiiw hetvvcn apfilicaiua and Oaih 
odminuaiMioa (cummtly avunginy 1 1/; ■•• i«xi ycu*\ withtM cimpnvnixin; ihc iniegriiy or'ihc praoets. 

Thi* pifcii abu may ptuvide the I Xsthkru wiifc a Miaicsic advanian: at neti y«3i'» Gwvvniian. The pcsplc fliidc ia 
Chicacn's OMinallatMin toMkacdc tcpnauH iiu«sBMMi<i 14' pi«ouiaI vxicrK. .Similar hoctdiip etot in pniiiiciily 
iia(<urtaai siai«a iltai have lam: uittan owcvniiaiiiiw iii'i lieittit: jvmuttcM naoikiUk. like Ctlifiiraia mj Tom. la lad 
oacc icMd ia Chiota ibc |uk« may N: mw quickly i\^ic?K-d hy ilM lAh' ncivMitlc ia Lm Aaeetes. lite lAh lua 
dcwkifcd a ctuavh-tvxwd aatarjli/^inii |<ni(nin ntiik-ksl atkt VHt I'v and I am ainridm ia Uicir ahiliiy iw exceed ilw 
MnaxM wc have acci<niplidicJ in Chicap<. ' ^ 

Koaisniziag Oiica^i^ hcncla. Mayiv KiL-hani M. I kilcy hat pkdvvd Tull .<uirr<^ '•< UNO'k Aaiv« Ckiyemhip 
Canpokn. Aiiicncsai/ia; inunt|;tani< hy makiitf than jwan: ni'ihi: full ivwponuhilitiei ni'ciiiB3uhi|i it a priority Ctt 
uitfpuMfeaadp(WauiRCM<r alias. TV-«pani«,-nha«vplannr<ltaf~c (lath cwnaihHiies in IWATor lO.CXIlaew 
Amcficaiia at a lime AcBckaaiaf the aatuali/^aini pnua» Uf iimuanUii ni'dlpihlc Oitacrans at key lo the 
Cianpaipi'i goal aftKUm new viaur KprnaiKVU Tor invA. Thou pi<4aiib> New Ameriauw can ba%« fitx teeiaL 
IHikioL ami «et>iiontie itnpacu ma ju« ia Chitapt hm aiitin ihc Uniiitl .Stale*. 

HnitiapikeaaiunliKiiiiia amtntvcniy wthia tht,*o«ii-it nl'a D*'d i-iiin:ndiip iaiibiivv pntviiks a cininicrpniM to ihc ' 
ki^MNHSM l*3ny>jaaAeBi«i k:i;al iumdgntina.TK ikMi: r «« jNm ihc pnihlctiia iintiu(iams hriag lu the United 
***• l""* "fcai we ■> aowmry iki ti« imtpaK ■raiupram* inin Amuxaa Mciiay 

I ha«« ciiekMcd two pwoai ihai capiaia the ii*xH'k atfkxu, nl IIN( i'< Caiiioaien. I am inienanol ia uaaNiriiine 
^!!^ !•'" "* '^^"*»' P''"' P"*P"i ia •«*» iM ii«vn-i«tv ih- r»'«tk> "i' '»* impk-tnemation. I kvik Ciuwanl m 
thsMiay rr<M« yoa. If yiw hanne any tiurainak nr imct. /*»»: tnwiaci inysrlf i«r my aMiiciatc Gaea Coined. 

I'ir»iih'ni/>;nx'wite I liiKaatv 




From: K«via O'Keeft 

Re: New Qtixen Vetcr Refistradeo 

Date: September 28, 1995 : 

Before Fiscal 1994, INS generally received and processed about 300,000 naturalization 
applications per year. By die end of this fiscal year, the number of applications will have 
increased to 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 for next year. Of the 1,000.000 applications, the 
overwhelming majority (75%) are concentrated in Ave cities. 

Los Angeles 


New York City 




San Francisco 




By the end of fiscal 95. ENS expects to have completed 530,000 applications and to 
have a backlog of 738,500 applications. This will be an increase of 76% . but it will still 
leave a growing backlog of pending cases. 

In response to die backlog. INS will implementing Citizenship USA. Tliis program is 
designed to eliminate die backlog and insure diat b« the summer of 1996. die time period 
from application to completion of the citizenship program will be six months. Citizenship 
USA is being piloted in Los Angeles, and with die next four months will be expanded to 
include Miami, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. 

Under cunent funding, efforts to speed up naturalization processes cannot be achieved. 
The two major components of the process. Citizenship USA and the UNNO project are 
dependant on funding which is subject to Congressional notification and limitations. 

As to voter registration. Citizenship USA will include a voter registration by mail form 
in the packag* distributad to n«w citizens in Los Angeles. In addition to Los Angeles, the 
voter registration packets ara included in Miami. In Chicago, local election officials register 
at swearing ia caremooias u do San Francisco ofHcials. In San Diego, voter registration 
efforts at n«w dtizaa swearing in ceremonies are conducted by die League of Women Voters, 
Pro-America, and "yf* Can Vota." In Virginia, representatives of local government attend 
ceremonies and provida registration by mail packets. In Washington, D.C. also providas voter 
registration packets to its jiew citizens. 

In total, dia INS effort at voter registration togsdier widi die efforts of local electad 
ofRdala and groups such as die League of Women Voters is resulting in registration of 
n atura l i zi fd cttizsnsL But tfaa paca of naturalization will limit the number of new votan. 

A copy of dia Justice Department memorandum on INS processing u attached. 




From: Kevin OlCeefe 

Re: Naturalization Ceremonies 

Date: March 13. 1996 

I have reviewed the process of voter registration in naturalization ceremonies. In every instance 
in which a new citizen is sworn in, the new citizen receives a packet fiom \H.S. which includes 
a voter registration mail in card in the form ^jproved by the Federal Election Commission under 
the National Voter Registration Act In addition to the cards, a number of groups operate voter 
registration activities at ceremony sites including local election ofBcials, the League of Women 
Voters, and other non-partisan organizations involved in voter regisiration activates. 

In situations where the ceremony u for smaller groups, under 1,000 and usually around SOO; on 
site voter registration is very successful for both new citizens and others. Where ceremonies are ' 
larger, in some cases approaching 10.000 it is physically impossible to manage effective voter 
registration efforts for a number of reasons. The primary reason is time. It takes at least one 
hour, and sometimes longer to fill a hall with 10,000 people. The ceremony can last up to an 
hour. It takes approximately two minutes to fill out a registration card. For a crowd of 10,000 
the card completion is not a problem, collection is. After a period of two hours plus, most 
people want to get themselves and their families out of the hall especially if children are present 

There is no way to keep the people there and ask them to line up in front of a table and register 
to vote even assuming that the local registrars could staff the tables necessary to service 10,000 
new voters. 

In Chicago, tiiere is a plan for a mass ceremony this summer. The registration attempt to be 
coordinated with Skiimy Sheehan, our best field organizer. Sheehan is trying to see bow a voter 
registration could be conducted when a crowd in the thousands are sworn iiL I will keep you 



TO: AtaKAJaWkBir 

*RE: 189S NatumCzaSon Hiring Uwd 

UT: Fe&niary 26,1980 

m <ha MMng point papa r wret* FrM^ p«- thB WhiM Hoiaa rvquKt to P«n 
Barry, you w«lneCieat»Ml I stfd that INS <• hiring more than 850 addKenaistafp 
topPOcaaa a p pBwati ona ^ * 

TTw nunbar oontas from tf)a foiAofringr 

1985 R^^uui jnvTwiy: 

270 ( a ppro Bdwa ta<ygHftoflhaieW p a» mgi an(oflioafaand<Kindartcs) • 

ISSe.Rapra^ananing: ~* 

k 40OC27T) taiiip qrar y oWcer^and130 t e<Tyofarydt(1cifarSeataa»6rT>erlt»)) 

» i5O(75:afnpo0toW9and75ta(npdarf«ferMh«rdU«s-4mentf«) ' 

• ^•^ •■• 88 (oofltractofi tor Safvjoa Cantm) 

Thit eomaa to a UtSa o¥ar 90a (Or couaa, It it not 900 FTFs, a most of ItMM ' 
persons veNradonry far a pcrQon of thayaar.) ibraughttfwonnouKatftotaldeyvrila 
•^noratftanaacrtjQcauaathanirnberaterthacthgoTiaaandthacentBKtarsgaBtlg •• 
being daSanninad. 

143 ' 




TO: ^mcrnKmnmsiL. • 

Offiea or ttM Vie* PrMidant 

FM: DtvidE _ 

CHizenahipU Sr- 

RE: Po»sibl« Awltano for C Kteanship USA firom NPR 

lyn - F«biuary22,19S8 ■ 

^Thank you for ytJurMndoffvcf possible assistanc* for this prajaet HcnB'sssn 
Initial jjst of halp wa could us« 

1. J§maaranl Md*Mr- Wa would ba happy to hava adiStianaLstaff, particularly In our 
larger oflteea. W* could usa aoma paopla on raguiar day ihifta, and even more far an 
aftemoon-avanlng shift and Dor vv«a)canda(SM.^ and Sunday aftamoon). Wavwruid 
nead roughly tha sama rttjmbars of tamporary ac^udiealions ofltoars (GS 5 - 1 1) and 
clerical support (G$-4). For thaa^udleationaofnoarpoaitiona, It would ba great to 
ha>« parsons wHh siiTdlar experience: datertrMng eHgibnity for disaster loans, VA 
ban^g^viaaSi-ortheiaQe. ^ 

:kOur efllcae could utnas these people (particuiarfy dadcs) immediately. In or:ier 
to cohduet interviews, arflirtnators would need approadmateiy 1 week of instruction ind 
j( week of on4i«^ training. Therefore, ft wodd be beat if the perwns filling thesn 
"positions could s^3 monthi or longer, and camato us in batohee. AAvtraMng. each 
new temporary eflleerworidng fun-time oouid complete et leest 200 easea par montr I, 
and maybe mora. Aitemetively, we could use these worVars to conduct the requirar.! 
English languaga/tivicataeting or to help with ceremonies, fteeing up other 
intan/lewefs to conduct man In ter v i e ws daily. 

We VBlnteraetedheiiherdataliees or flolouohed workers. mthecaseoT 
fUrloughed attf; MS weuM look to fM wtfRdent funding to pay fbr salaries at the awne' 
leveiaea our other tempa. We would hope that their bane ms o uu id be oaffied by the 
home egendaa. We era already tiyfrtg to hirs as many tsmpcss r i aaaa our budget ¥111 . 
pamlt, so even findbig partW lUndng for Itjrtoughod wortoars win posa a chaOanga. 
We may need to Mk far your help with thia. aa It Is asdrameiy unOkafy that INS ooulct gat 
a d Ul tlon Bl fUndar ap TDg r a nuneU B uuu ghCongpasatWa year. Nonetheless, we win Arid a 
waytfthepeoplaareavanabla. ..^ - 

- Wguldttbafsaafcia to obtain ArnarlCorpsvolunlaafa to help our? 


Here's a first oit at what WB can LiM in our iargastoffieu. Than aratha ^ ^* 
numbor of additional staff w« oouid uae at one timo; mora individuala eeuU ba rotutad 
through to maintain this leval through Seplambff. 

LosttiQia' Ttrngpfflgn' TampCleffca 

«Ld8 Angelas 75 78 

NawYorK 30 30 

Miami 28 28 

San Frandsco 30 30 

Chicago .< 25 25 

Wa ana trying to idertfMy naads in othar dtias as well 

? Staff Speeiaflata!-* 

In each of the isiad dtlea, a srjiall number of axparlanead atiffoould maka z big 
dlffafenee. We woulrfbe Intereatad in: 

■ Nfanagars with (OQiatieilK^anea for qutefcaeeon, to help handle the 
temporary worltferea ar rangements; 

> Spadal ayants plannara, to assist with oafemony iogisticai planning; and 

» Community relatlens spedaHsti, to help ua manage relations and planning v.ith 
tha many community groups invislved In off-«lte IntervlewsL 

In Washington, our team could usk 

> An a a yar l e n ca d prDCuramartt apedanstfaorrtraetwrttar to hwlpwiita and moy:' 
contracts/coopandive agreamants for caramony planningj 

» An analyakfsmlHarwtlhdasign&igstatlstieal reporting daiabaaaa, as well ae 
anaiysing trend data, so that vw can provida up4»idale numbers on pregrasc , 
spot any probiem veaa Immadtateiy, and respond to a grmving number of 
AdmMatration and Ccngraasianal requeets for ioeal eniyses; and 

A ooRvnur^icaiiana spedaBat support our responees to the prass and to help 
desi^i/produca plotted maiarlala> 



W eould f— fly xia* • good c cm r io iiy spaam in New Yortc City. FrernMoy 
through SeptMibsr.wanMdaddtionaleipaciiy to handle 25,000 navvdtizans and 
family membora par month. Tha VQr|uiM CMi b* divWad Into savarai sessions per 
month, 90 smaller venues (seating no tawer than 3;00G and prefsratsiy closer to 10,C X)) 
oauld be used mere frequently. 

In Los Angeles, the federal court controls the ceremonies, which are held in tfi a 
LA Convention Center. So tar. they have been quite coo p e ra t i ve In providing detes to 
keep up with our increasing runbers. Butwewffl need ar«theri0*12 ceremony da:,s 
in July<£eptcmber, in order to svmbt in those pamns approved by September Gnstend 
of waiting the nonnal 2 moRtha mora). We are raising this to the courts, and we shoiJd 
know soon (fttiey and the ConvenOon Canter win aoeommodate this need. lfnot,vve 
will need some help in findmg appropriate space there as welL 

1 Qffieagpsee 

Given the need to have files and eomputeis evaJlabie. it makes sense to utilize 
our asdsting prpiect ofRoe space completely, rather than finding newtemporary office 
locaQons. It would be most heipM if 6SA agreed to let us use our offices in Federal 
buildngs for extended days (8anv8pm) end on weel< e n ds . That wfll involve provldng 
guard staff, as well as covering ad^onal uttlltles charges. 

S. PPoeurJWent ^- . - 

As we discussed In Otf mairtlno, we have several contrada/dooparatlve 
agreaments tor pilot prefects In our major dtiea, wMeh wa would IDce to move ASAP, i-i 
order to free up atcff to move more eaaas. These include planning and supporting 
ceremonlce, provldng information to applicants, and English/dvics testing. We woulc 
appradete help firom NPR and 0MB in finding the fastest ap pr opr ia te vehidee. We 
have as^lered piggybaddng one of these on an existing DepL of Education grant, but 
they are not enthuaiasfle; pertaps your offiee could help vrarfcthiB out 

Thanks for your conslderatloa Wa^ continuing to check the n e eds for staff ir 
otherdtfes,endtobrainsto(TntaratfwrpesaibilitieataincreBeereeult8. Ifyouhawea-y 
queatiena, I em be reached at S144gi8; AOee Smith Is al 514-1900. 


^..jg^jb— ^ doug (Mbroth«r at npr @ CCMAIL t • t 

^^SS^tCS* 09M 9/99 09:38 AM X ^ 

To: 0«b Smith 


Subja c t: INS CuMomar S«(vle« 

Maw Forward Itami 

Fron: doug farbrochar ac npr 
Data: 3/9/96 10:19AM 
To: Oanlal Naal ac npr 
CC: Laurla Lyons at npr 
Subject: IMS CuaCooar Sarvie* 

Mew Text I ten; Text_l 

I ' m %<orlclng with lH8_to lapr ov aervi ce. I want .thenuco. atay. open 

evenlnga and weekend* to_conduct njLturallzation Interviews ^ but. they think 
'"gsa will balk at guarding and operating the buildings, who should I talk 
to^ make sure this is not an obstacle? Barrora? "> 



Ricnard J Diefefiba- -t HQ-EEO-OOl 

OaC!: 3/19; 9 6 I: OS PM 

Prior icy: 'normal 

TO: John Clarke «c ERO-003 

TO: David H Parish at ERO-003 

TO: Phyllis ^ Chi ae NRO-001 . 

TO: Joe M Jansen at NRO-001 

TO: Debbie Dusenberry ac SRO-001 

TO: Wavne Johnson at SRO-001 

TO: Greg Ward at HRO-003 

CC: Rufus F Johnson 

CC: Deniele C Berrnan 

Subject: Citizenaihip USA II 


Message Content 

Please be aware of » 'White Hotue' initativa to further » nhin77 firi'< 
~ l(ieelerate tke SerVlW'! Waturalix atidn efforts und er the Citizenship 
-O bA p iu1ttJ L._ Tim iii f o w a atiou lU1» Office has at tail tl n w l e viaxdABq 
tHls jnitiatTve is limited. We do know however, that the latest 
efforts to su ppnrr rt^_ £ro]*gC iwnich runs through December) cal"l~f or 
■ ^"^^ ■ " facilities to 6 a.m. - a p.m . " 

on Sunday. The focus is at existi ng 

" extending the hours at existing 
"(Monday- Friday) and B a.m. to ? 

citizenship locations, and, with the exception of New York City, no 
Sddicional space beyond what has been obtained or in process is 

WPR renresencatives and David Rosenberx? have visited G. ^ ft in L^. San 
'Fran, Chi, New" York and Miami on thga intHtive so you may want to 
contact these GSA regions las well as INS district oftieest to b'eeom e 
up-to-date on these evenfl': 

Please provide this office with any potential impact to yi. ir space 
actions that this "White House* initiative has caused. 

As more information becomes available I will pass it on. 



dou9 f arbrothcf at npr @ CCMA1.L 
09/1 9/96 09:37 AM 

To: Dab Smith 

ec: * 

Sub|«ce Ramlndar* for Oeug (or Laurial: 

Haw Forward Itam; 
..............................<..._ Forwarded 

From: doug farbrothar at apr ' 

Data: }/9/96 10:S1AH 

To: doug farbrothar at npr 

cc: Laurie Lyons at npr 

Subject:- Remlndara for Doug (or Laurie]: 


Wew Text Item: Text_l 

Check with 0PM about converting competitively hired tempa to permanent or 
term eo^loyees without another competition. INS in LA thinJca they are 
going to start losing people this sunner if they can't promise them longer 
term jobs; the tenp athority runs out in September. '< 

Talk to ms and Justice security bureaucrats about speeding up hiring. 
Instead of waiting t or mon ths for the conylete backgroun d ch eck, how abou t 
a_ti ngerprint ch eck then bring then on board while the background checic ia 
continuing . DoD~36e« "that; T tKihlr: Tfiere'is plenty of noa-SMsitiva. 
work ana tra^ Tinq *?r tP *™"£Q do w >itlt hh^y'ra waifirity ^ Besides, I hea« 
that the cont ract employ ees %rt>o han dl e ha nat urajixation certificates, the 
—most sensi tive do cu ment, diba't gat a backgrou nd check. 

Call Barrom about INS hours and space. 



1] From: Dorothy C Sucrtueed 3/26/9< 7>«1M (2«9« bytosi 1 In) 
.: Kan L Smith, Themao M 0'N«11. Stophan A Smith 
.bjaet: ClUzanahlp USA 

— ^^— — — — ^— — ^— ^^— ^— — Feruardad — — — ^^^^^— — 

offlt Evangalla KlapaKla at EK0-MYC-«t4 3/23/96 2t42PN (1S92 bytaa: 1 In) 

.: Laaiay E Small at ER0-««3. Dorothy C SuartXMod at ER0-«*2 

caipt Raquaatad 

: Robart Breulllat. Hary Ann Santnar at ER0-NYC-««3 

bjact: Cltlzanahlp USA 

— _^^__^______^_________ Haaaaga Contanta _— _— _— -^____ 

OoCtla and Laalla. 

Thla la to lot you knou th« lataat In cltlzanahlp USA. Ua had a 

maatlng ovar tha wookand at tha dlraetlon of tha Oaputy Commlaalonor. Thla 

coming waak wa will ba gattlng additional poaltlona. ate., for tha 

CUSA projact. 

Thus far. wo gave out ovar 2*M applications for aach vacancy poatad. 

You ulll naad to hava tha appllcatlona procaaaad a day or «o aftar tha 

cloalng data. Ua waro Instructad to do llmltad claarancaa on thaaa 

indlvlduala (flngarprlnt chaek. and drug taotlng. only). Tha ramalnlng 

procaaa ulll ba dona uhila on-duty. Slnca tha eartlflcat* la laauad 

In alphabatlcal ordar appllcatlona aheuld ba ravlawod liiwadlataly. If J^^ 

you hava a problam with ovartlaw awn ay I mm aura^Lanl will ba ganafeua "7^ 

bacauaa aha_kno wa thla la a top priority wlO> th a Vtilta Keuar. AlabT 

tha lady from Drug Taatlng eallad «a and I will raturn har call on 

Monday . I hopa aha will eooparata bacauaa I'm looking for a 3 day 

turnaround tlma for drug taat claarancaa (from day of Intarvlaw) . 

Plaaaa advlaa ma en Uadn«sday how haavy tha load of appllcatlona ha« 
baan. Ua »rm canceling tha ad aftar Sunday tha 24th. axcapt for tha 
Long laland papar which runa until Uadnaaday. 

P.S. you •r^ all waleaaw to comn to NYC whan wa ara procaoalng thaaa 
Indlvlduala. Hepafully. tlia waak of April 16. 



0«v« Parikh 


Froffli Stephen A Smith 11/22/9S 3:58PN (2297 byt««i 1 In) 
}erothy C Sucrcueod 
rhenw* N O'Nail. K«n L Smith 
-i— Fo rvi«r d«d 

: Robert J Longo at HQSEC 11/22/9& 11:26AN (1964 bytasi I In) 

>t«ph«n A Smith at ER0-««2. Liz Robb at SR0-««1. Oavid L Hllne at NR0-««1, 

:• a Raesa at URO-a02 

Ipt Raquastad 

Uta Spalding at HQBOR. Nancy E Ualaa at HQHRA. Kathryn E Shaahan at HQBOR. 

lart J Longo, Gloria T Scott 


Haaaaga Contents 

item li Text.l 

You may be aware that HQSEC requested DOJ/SEPS approval to obtain 
lesser ecope background investigations than required by position 
sensitivity for tsmporary NTE 1 year District Adjudications Officers 
(DAD'S) and Applications Clarke (Apps Clerks) hired under the "NATZ" 
initiativs. The OeparOnent DENIED our request. So, we will nsed to 
obtain 81 's on the DAO's and LBI's on Oie Apps Clerks. 

HQSEC is authorizing each ACSO to use waivers of preappointment 
background investigations for all the temporary DAD and Apps Clerk 
poeitione filled under the NATZ hiring initiative. In addition, the 
ACSO's ars authorized to approve waivers for ALL ttiess positions, on a 
:ase-by-cass basis. ACSO's will NOT need to send any of Oieeo waivere 
to HQSEC for approval. OAO waivers can be approved under existing 
slankst waivsr authority for lonagration Examiners (per INS msme dtd 
12/2C/88 to ARC'S from AC. Psrsennsl and Training). HQSEC authority 
Co approve waivers for the NCS Apps Clsrks hired under this initiativs 
Is hereby delegated to ACSO's. 

^s waivers are authorized *n4 thess are temporary positions. 128-day 
background investigations (BZ's or LBI's. as rsqulrsd by the position) 
'»n b« roqusstad to conssrvs funds. 

•ell ms if you have any questions. 

)eb LonQo 


Ztaa««bMm_adTiaad.eluc wahay* 14 CMp MO« for CCTAwto hava 
a acuricy problaaa • ae»a probably "graat, and ~aeaa probably jaiaer . 
Furauane to a prvrieua CDlJrtalaeeafaraaeo call wltb lick Haaclaga ha 
adriaad chat aueh altuacieaa ««ara not likaly ce ba daarad up rapidly 
baeauaa of ttaa amunt of work ia aosic. aad tbat aaw aalactleaa abeuld 
ba aada. I bavo baaa adviaad, hewaror, tbae BQUC woa't 'allew* ua to 
withdraw our aalaetlena. My quaatieo* la thla • who tha hack ara thay 
to tall ua who wa aheuld or aheuld net aalaet or un-aalaet. Dalaaa 
•eawoaa can tall aa a rational baala for thalr actleoa. It ia ay 
iatantlea to iMiadiataly prapara corr a apondanca to withdraw all 
fourtaan of thoaa aalaetlona. an^ to hava feurtaaa na« aalactlona 
mada. what do you thlakT 



Author: Jaaan* M lUy ac no-003 

MCai »/aO/»« ll!47 AM 

Priority! Horval 

Mc«lpt RoquMtad 

TO: lilMa Convy ac DO-MZA-003 

Subjaeci llaI3]i Ta^ OAOs 

.. . . -- — Maaaaga Coacaaca 


Mould yeu chaek to ••% If tha eelleirlag ■■■ca wara raealvad la Hlaal: 
Cltizaaahlp OSA frea tha 0£fiea of tha Oaputy Comlaaieaar datad March 3C, 
19»<, and Hiring datad May 10, lf»C, .frea tha Offiea of Plaid Opa.? Tha March 
oMMpaxmlta axcaadlag m ealllaga and tha May aaM ladlcataa that efflcaa 
ahould ovaraalact by 30%. 

Slnea Mlaai falla uadar Dallaa for Paraoaaal aad Sacurlty puzpeaaa. chaaa 
maaaagaa hava all baoa forwardad to Kick Baatlaga, Buaaa Raaourcaa In HQ aa ha 
la raaponalbla for tha CDSA hiring. Ma '11 gat back to you aa aoen aa poaalbla. 

Forward Baadar 

Subjaet: Ra(3]: Taap MOa 

Author: lllaan Convy at SRO-MXA-003 

Data: S/17/9C 3:31 PM 




Raply Saparater 

Subjaet: Ra: Taoip OAOa 

Author: Jaanna M Ray at 8BO-003 

Data: 5/17/9C 13:33 PM 

I apoka with Sacurlty In Baatam Raglan aa wall aa with Brian Mayara, 
ROCOD, regarding thla laaua. A dlatrlct doaa NOT hava tha authority to 
withdraw aalactleaa baaad ea aultablllty. Praaantly, only BQ baa that 
authority. A walvar la tha ravlaw of prallalnary Information. 
Employaaa who ara aalaetad for poaltlona ara antltlad to full aaeurlty 
background chacka. Only whan tha proeaaa la cooplata can tha 
aalactlona ba withdrawn for suitability raaaona. 

Counaal haa had to vpaar bafora tha Marlt Syataaa Protactlon Board on 
thaaa laauaa aad tha BarTlca haa bad to raaalaet aapleyaaa and 
coaplata tha full aaeurlty baekgreuad chacka. Although job off ara aay 
ba wlthdraim for ettaar valid paraoaaal raaaoaa, if you withdraw 
aalaecioaa tot tha fourtaan that wara daaiad waivara it would appaar 
that tha jotoa wara withdrawn for auitability raaaona. 

Again, wa larn— and ovar-aalactiag for tha DAG poaitioaa. 

Kaply Saparater 

Subjaet: Ta^ OAOa 

Author] Biehartf B Xallaar at BO-NZA-OOa 

Datat S/U/M 4iS3 VN 


M«y Btai T MoCaittiy EhNood 
To: CCMMLHQ404.Lauri»Sullww JoIom L. CCMAILHQ4.. 


rack wintid to torn* If ttw (Wd CM now advlM n«w WrM (or Job appttcanls) that m* Job* wiB last through tte 
q« (DAOa) or a »• ftrtMT far ttM dwics. 

At tha m aa tlno wMti CMa Sala laat Thureday, this question cama up, and sha was pratly emphatic that we could not 
yet make that Und of offer. 

Has there bean any ii M »ewer * on this, so that we can use this as a way of making the jobs more sttractiva? INS Is 
UM ii p e U ng wIM a lot of other ernpl uy ei s just now. We doni always get the best and bhghtast for example. In CHI, 9 
of 11 aatedaea had crtniinal racpr rt ai 

If we can tal people thai tha joba wfl be 3 months longer, we may get a better level of applicanL 
Mary Ellen 


.. __ — r • <x -"-.i -i^ai .r; .-.« •es;;..-ates ■..-.a 

r:s: ;£ ■:^.• "3 CVSA mvesiijaiiins to :• *bou; 5163, :00. It ACT -as is i.r.d 
less 100 r.ew -ires tnrough -.-m end o* ch« FY. chen t.-.ey will -av« ens-;.-, 
.-noney Co cov«r rh« 78 C'JSA invescigacions already at ACT. However, if ACT 
CO fund 100 CO 150, Chen chey will not be able Co fund che 78 CUSA 
inveecigaciona. On S/20 he will learn che expecced number of additional 
investigations ACT will fxind during th« remainder of che FY. Then he can cell 
us about th« funding needs. He will call me on S/20 and I will pass che 
information on to you. 


Forward Header 

Author: Robert J Longo at HQSEC 
Oace: S/16/S6 2:30 PM 

Winona/Jerry -- 

On 5/16. Dave Milne called to say h« has 78 BI/LBI funding requests 
for new employees hired under CUSA (i.e: WHO HAVE ALREADY EOD'ED), and 
ha has NO MONEY to fund their BI's/LBI's. 

As you know. HQSEC has been funding CUSA BI/LBI requests from an ACT 
G-104 because we made an arrangement to do so. 

Well, as I understand it from Dave, HQ concacced ACT and asked ACT to 
return funds, amd ACT returned $600,000.00 Co HQ. Then, a crush of 
HQSEC requests to fund CUSA cases hit ACT. and ACT has run out of 
money to fund these cases. Therefore, we cannot send the cases to j| 
OPM. and the employees are on the rolls and no BI/LBI is being 7 
conducted. ' 

/ This is exactly "h^t has happened to INS in the past, and INS got into \ 
/ quite a bit ot di fficulty 'ba ck when* for hiring new emplo yees who were! 
/ NEVER inves tiga ted. That li wny P&J in siscs ehat_the OPH background — y 
I investigation be scheduled befor e a waiver rs"'appfove<f! He made an y 
1^ exception tor CUSA, but we need Cd t^solv e tRU qulcKiy. ^ 

I told Roy NOT TO SQID any more funding requests for CUSA cases to ACT 
until we resolve this matter, which I will pursue with Winona/Jerry on 
Tues. 5/21. 




rremt Barbara M Tanaglia at HQ-OOa 


Tot . HQKXM OSA.HQDOI OSA POST Oma l(*JSMrnC,TAALBlHI... XJ^"~0, '' :>" ." 
Oatai /Vl^H, 3/11/9S 5:31am -A^V*" 0^ ^P T- .'' T,JL- , 

Subject! Hamo to you from tha Coaaiaaiooar ^ v'u/f i . P"'t fli/'i*' 

Alica, balow ia a aaaaaga tha Cooadaaiooar wantafl ■• to paaa on to you. 
Pigura tbis la an aaay way of doing it. / 

■nianka £or tba draft Citiaanahip OSA Haltr. Zt looka good to aa but 
Z think it naada aora apaeifleiey in aoaa araaa, a.g., bow nany o£ tha ISO 
bava baan birad offica opaninga ia ■apriag* ahould ba abla to ba nailad to a 
apacifie aoath by now. Alao, I rhlnlc it aigbt wall bava a city-bycity 
aaetioo in wfalcfa kay davalopaanta in aacb of tha fiva ara outlinad. Hara aay 
ba tha placa to atata ai^aetad ataffing lavala, parcantaga ineraaaa that 
rapraaanta ovar laat yaar, how aaay (about) ara on beard, liat of groupa ' 
participating, ate. Wa want to giva national ovarviaw but tha prupoaa of tha 
naltr ia to prvlda follca in kay loca l aa with infosaatioa and raaaaxiranea that 
thinga ara happaning for thaai. Zf peaaibl'a, Z'd alae highlight a diffarant 
city aacfa tiaa for a 'faatura* of aoowthiag that ia netawortfay. What conaa 
to Bind right now may ba tha 00a Batioo affort and difwiar in jljaa i or tha 
Oora aaatinga in L.A. (though aaybo thay'ra baat kapt Irrfk^T) ' 

Z alae proodaad Raha that tha fir« » ^'^^pr^ m^^r^/rrm^ to Rano, 
copiaa to Panatta, VP, Zekaa, Cianaroa, taaaual, and Saaco) would ceaa naxt ,, j^ 
waak with th a naltr tha wa fc[ t;» *n\\nm zf thia ia not a good aehadula froai ^^^^-^ 
tha atandpo^ilt of tiaaj.y nuabara of amafhlng, lat'a atill do aa updata ^^ 
intataal aaao for thaa naxt waak laying out what tha aehadula will ba froB "^^ 

' ^/7> 




vj-3. department or Justice ^-t 

tmmigraiion and Naiuraliution Service 



OITice of the Coounitsioner 42} / 5(r»<t MW. 

»mrti«„on.oc203j« ^ 25. 1996 


ic-ic /I 

FROM: THE COMMISSIONER//. ^ ^ /i'L(^<-<l^Jl^, i.f 



I am enclosing a summary rcpon on CITIZENSHIP USA, our nationwide initiative toljecome 
current with citizenship processing. We are aggressively pursuing our FY 1996 goaTof 1.2 
million cases completed. Highlights of this report include: 

Increased StafC Since last August, the citizenship workforce in our five target districts has 
increased from 236 to 791 positions (a 23S% increase). Another 100 contractors are being hired 
to handle citizenship applicaoons for these districts at our Service Centiers, a major eSiciency 
gain. 62% of the peak staff are now working; virtually all of the remainder are hired and should 
be on duty within the next month. (See hiring chart attached to report). We are working with the 
National Performance Review staff to increase staffmg further, and to implement expedited 
hiring and clearance procedures. ' * 

New Qffiyea. New Citizenship Centers are operating in Los Angeles (2), San Francisco (2), and 
Miami. In April, new offices will open in El Monte (Los Angeles), Fresno, and Chicago. New 
York City will open another location in early May. 

Increaain y Case Completion*. Through January, INS had completed processing 241 ,567 
applications, up 61% over the same time period last year. The completion rate will accelerate 
dramatically in the next few months, as major staffing increases take effect. (See chart on 
completions attached to report). 

Stronger Commnnlt v Partnerahlp i. Our work with cotrununity-based organizations has taken 
an enormous leap forward in the past few months. In our five key districts, we now meet 
monthly with more than 100 commimity groups, as well as local ofRcials. Cooperative efforts in 
application assistance, convenient interview sites and ceremonies are growing rapidly. With few 
exceptions, the feedback is extremely positive. 



The Honorable Vice President Albert Gore 

Leon Panetta, Chief of Staff; White House 

Carol Rasco, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy 

Rahm Emanuel, Assistant to the President and Director of Special Projects 

John Hilley, Assistant to the President and Director of Legislative Af&iis 

Doris Matsui, Deputy Assistant toathe President and Deputy Director, Office of Ptiblic Liaison 


41-503 97-6 








H •■■ 2'?. 

Memofor INS District DirectoR in: Los Angeles San Fnmcisco 

New York Kfiami 

Oiicago Newuk 


From: Doris Meissner — Commissioner, Immigrttion ind Naturalization 
Sendee ^^A*^'^'^' 

I hereby delegate to you my authority to waive INS rules and regulati ons, 
within the confines of law. Please let me know which rules youhtve 

^ I expect you to use this authority to strengthen security against y 

naturalization of aliens who do not meet stmnory q» «|'fi''^<»n standa rds 
"orT^^&eacan citizenship, and to enhance tEe speed and coi^aieQce ot tiie 
process for those who do. I bold you accountable for your judgment and the 

ma, V 


I also authorize you to recruit and hire tempofaiy enqiloyees locdly as 
needed to ej^edite the naturalization of qualified alient. '7 

r qualified alient. '7 




iviemorandum to: 

Edward McElroy 

District Director, New York 

Brian Perryman 

District Director, Chicago ' ^ 

Walter Cadman 
District Director, Miami 

Thomas Schiltgen 

District Director, San Francisco 

Richard Rogers 

District Director, Los Angeles , 

Subject: Citizenship USA 

We hereby delegate to you full authority to waive, suspend, or deviate from 
DOJ and INS non-statutory policies, regulations, and procedures provided 
you operate within the confines of the law. Please let us know which rules 
you ISive waived. 

We expect you to use this authority to strengthen security against 
naturalization of aliens who do not meet statutory qualification standards 
for American citizenship, and to enhance the speed and convenience of the 
process for those who do. We hold you responsible for your judgment and 
the results. 

Jamie Gorelick Chris Sale 

Deputy Attorney General Deputy Commissioner 


doug farbrothar at npr @ CCMAIL X g 

09/19/9S 09:36 AM C^ " • 

To: Oab S<nith 


SubiMC Ra(2l:ms 


Frost doug farbrothar 

Datai 3/30/9C 3:41AM 

*To: llalna C. Xaaarck ac OVPMOTES 

Subject: R«t31i IMS 

Haw Taxt I tan; Ra: INS 

I ta lked to Chria today and ahe aeeaM to be making progreaa vlt the 
ai lagatlon latter. Let' a give har another day or two. I think ah e ii 
trying to get the HQ ataff uaed to the ideal ' ' 

. Reply Separator 

Subject: Re: IMS 

Author: Elaine C. Kanarck at OVPHOTES 

Data: 3/19/9C 10:08 AM 



deug larbrothar at npr • CCMA|. 
Ot/1*/MO«:3S AM 


Ta: OabSmMi 

Haw tttgvmrd It— t 
............................ — ... PonAxted 

Proai doug CmsbcetlMr 

o*t«i )/ao/f« tiSSiN 

*Tei Clain* C. Kaaucek at OWMOm 

Subjaec: Ra(4ls HB 

Naw Taxt It— t Rai Ratal: INS 

now harj "f »il<*'*^ ^^' flv ei tlaa. Tha ato ry 
vry **** n«op t« working on th>; backlog.... aontha 

waiti ng fog Om and DW haadouartara to adrartlaa vacanclaa, aaa— bla 
llata ot apyilcanta. aaka aalactlona, aand tlngagarlnta ►«» >■»«« rar. ^.t 
_t>^v OPM gKa ek eharaetar rafaranea « |n<< pgawtam aaalovara (tha aaaa lairaX 
ot accutlnv that I qff^ tar gay aaerat national aactirlty claarancat . Xll 
thla for tawpogagy ■^ ^^t»■ ««; t-ti« n«^ giyH na s laral. By tha tl— tha pgoea aa 

la flnlahad. ■ ■ny ■pg lleanta haya takan othar joba. and tha proeaaa atarta . 

ovag. In ayagy elty i '"*'* »«-»•»•««•► mi-ai- torv ballava thay can q ^tsKTY ****** 

anomfh paopla locally to g^n two ahlfta and waakanda H only thay had th a 

authogl ty. 

Bar Thag aday ■orning, than I'll call y— to 

Tall Va ga I'» thiahlaa aboct ■arching with hl» on tha plekat llaa. 
^^_^_^_.^^^_^^^^^^^_ Kaply Sapairator ____^.^_^_^^_^^^^.^____^_ 

Sublact: Rat Ra(2li HO 

Author: Rlaln* C. Kaaaxek at OWMOTU 

Data: 3/20/9C >tlO AH 


aoug larbrothor at npr @ CCMAtL 
09/l9/9«09:3S AM 


Subject: R«(ei:INS 

WW forward It«m; 

.. .. ■ porwmxdad 

From I deug farbrothar 

Data: l/ai/9C ttSam 

•To: Elalna C. Xamarcic ac OvraOTBS 

Subjact: lta(«1 : INS 

New Text Item; Re: Rel4j: INS 

I favor draeei c meaeurea. I — mee ting wtth Jamie q and Chrla S Frid ay at 
'1:10. It I don't get what we need. I will call tor heavy artllleryT " 

Reply Separator 

Subject: Re: Re[4l: INS 

Author: Elaine C. Kamarcic at OVPtiOTES 

Date: 1/21/96 9:36 AM 



TO: Alb«rc Oor« ac EOP_OVP 

CC: elain* C. Kaiurcic ac EOF OVP 

CC: Bob Ston* ~ 

CC: Laurl* Lyons 

Subject: INS 


Hassaga Concancs 

A ttar tha maatinq Jania told Elaine that thay woul d: 

1^ delegate hiring authority 

/ - give each city manager a -project budget- to spend as needed 

'- a?i^ thl'!I?rT' '^=''«'^?""<» investigations on nS^ e4loy::t 
I - allow the cities "overhire authority.- «jr«==» 

Jamie said she would de liver hy Tii.cH.y 

rt.^L^"" ^ Tuesday waiting with the local INS manager for the 

wtli a^ive on l^T'lt}^ °" '"2 =S"""= ''"^ "^"^^ ^'^^ promlseS relief 
will arrive on time, and second that it will be all its cracked up to 

^'^ou'i:^ri^'°n^^h^ :c:.o^r"*'" -°"-^ '« -^" ^' --*» ^"<»-^- 




Tli««MhtTiMhirTTTrt'^nnii|||f|nfr|ii wrMd«iriwitfal^fl»»CO»Aatiwtyt^ 
CWAtnaSbdidbyDwidlaMMNwadAtWPKiMiirtMlwhmihVfcag iBji^ 

gi««Btl»daiqfsenMdbybadtBtaidSBloii^ DuriafArirteuraadt«vleir,th(fi««natdt 
•win of ik« tfbiUM thi A** CUSA dnktt «■« teviag k bini; sMBi^ cteanaec^ fta89 

With thk iBfenoaiea AiT ^i** '■i>i**d ^*itt ^ ^l'^ Bmm^ IXU lad BOW INS HQ, BMS 
fin II ■! w iiii g mm iiritti ilifflriiltiw U m l liijiiii nil rnrtrilnn Th* aim of tUt iaitiMiw ia 
to MupoMV lool (fitliht TiOTgifi wkk tH ocAfflqr lod bmbi thijr oHd to icooopBih tho 
(oii of bocontdf omBlBNilunBHBOB^rtkondcKthoTY. Along witk Ail floftffitjrnd 
BMMi h o w i nw wiB ccnilfai l um ii nl i dilit) fcr m i rfin thi rt > w Wt iJ fttiL 

The buie unmpllea of tfab iBidiitiw ii M fbSowK 

ToiltowthoCU8A oggij Btheriaakaoffa|toiqBdtDa30HtacwtiomK|ttj^ ^^ 
TtgioMi Omfw hww ft— miiM nu by Hmifj flMMtw) MB uiMki mml iJMCB aa^ag fcf 
till nbtdv* Witt eeooftoa.) TN>20KiBemnlibiMdaBtfamffdo«otidios«ziDtte 
1993 DAM phn ftuTdoiigHtid ftt Mts BtlHABH^i993 ndJuuuy, 199C sdmcoMBHt Tbo j 
CTJSA oflM wa be ibb to |p«kl ite find! iquil to tte latBaf iDOOM a 117 aaa« ttejr 
dees ^pfopnite. iBonif woid^ tBifladi csiDeipcKftootiBpjffe% ouuUHiibcipt uvuuiuo 
eta Tbeoaiy ca v t wabelltMyaaiippiMtioBfflidbyMpcfcai. l996iiooapiatediad 
tfai ifniHi Mt iwofB ■ 9f ttai MB 0( Idi bkm ycv. 

I i if eii l bwow 9 the fbof pet pfoow to ideBt^r sspvoweflMtt ftv tni 0bib^ tod too offlci^t) 
mpeoiiblB for dntfng ■■cfa; 

1. PvnadtndSecuriqriHUH: BQHRAndBQSECwilltfvinnteliaf ndieeuritx 
cMiiULe |iiocMMt (0 nBOvo i^r obittMi BB BiMBiBM tso pncBM> Tfligr wiD cost out s 
eew w p e Jt e u pi w ei lw o ^nni locil co^ftol bw o n i pofr BMiin biMl m OBd d ed g> g iiiniii oe 08 

3. BadfttiMBM: BCyWSQlMeatci^adBQIBUDaBOiaiatagaacwBcpidbidptaeedknftr 
ABBMaodniiaHlDaocoaeaqrftoaeaidiiilBMiaatoaoihir. SMkCDSAoOeewabe 
|i»« a tool HMOS «f tadi «■ «■ be «eM OB tkh Uitfive wkhooi Ai fiBBtMleM of OM^ 
naeuali k ^ariflB aaoDaB (^Stt Y& <BOl 

_ 3. A^BotaBwiWMB MQADMliHwiiilBmMwtfooiB edetoiBwBM taeMtt pWOMfc 

'ifHiiiiwmMaoM—wiaiitte i j mnJaBufciywabna^sj^riiBBrftnay 

Bi^ dbski bukid to provide Ae Mowtaf dM^ M4''i"Bd plvriiS to 
ftffwiewtfbolb *i»iiMrtnto»dBndtititig EMtiijiuiil ufflwhto 


ftnrardiBd«kiplHttABOaMafFUdOpariMbyteto2(a-Sl4-0051 MlBvttaM ^ • 
12niBSTMfaadv.MnfcM. ParhdhttktMdintoBihniildihoiBdirisihinmiai 
ukphOM « bMp« ■■*« cfi petal dTeoaiacl «to ca be taKhad « Soid^; Mb* 24 lAv 
UPM BSr. ta tti t««« tti* Am «• iqr cftnpi or ( 

>L Hiifa«: Pk— ii»iiita*cHBWfd ilaifl ■iliiiof^dhaktMii<|fcriiiirilMti« TIta 
aa« iMladt te aflkflriiid teM Imi^ a brakdofim br peritei or qvBBAtaX te ante or 
itaff on boirf, ite aoobar orwaarfv ad a bnaMoav or whan a vaoKiaB an fa tfat W^ 
pneaHL AhoBahid«pnjaeladBOO%fbrAonporideH«ba«itktadblaadaaaateattor 
U» tea Madad t» OM^tata da pnnn ftr te raariidar of tt* VBoat poaUooL 

Dbcan te peadbia aaAadiMtidia th« dtaofo aaay na to flB naadM aad^er aaaiite 
aaflag naadi #<iittaaOH Iminn iliiniiiart ibom 

B. FaoBtiaaanaBBnat: (9*«faa30KiaenantanffiiAcDaadabo«abthadHBietBnat 
daao&a the Bttnn oTsvaalad un af anaot fteOdaa «» aeoe^Bodaa than adAiooal arft 
CBO im aif ta w wtm, a^ nil i it hnun and aa^iaa dad w wfc wada an waaylaa, IhatianktMad 
aot taka IB aoaans tha eoat of cnaHfaf Oa wade heuB oTtha aan(sX than wi b« fladad bjr 
HQAONMeorOai to David loaaabait, BswavartothaadaathatthMaeonnabaidartifiad 
oraadmnadthiythoiddbatadBdBd. . 

Each diaBiciihoHU ain aaianwhaf^ bcq^ aiy^sBMBa tBBv nyba to 
utduy. For flaBplaf A^rpnoHBvvtiiynuulOB^Mamt 


MaMaHL ■ 

E. PraUaBn: Haandanribafa nw Mo tail aiydMhiiMa%BudtMaMo>wittMa> that aach 
&BtiBi ia apakaeiat AH aay aol hm abaadr baaa addnaaMl aad ai^paaAla aotaioa yaa 
uay wuB to neoHnaBK BBBylaa: ipartnnpnhlMiWBhAPy a^wynwR wBcamfm 

Jim pina ■BaawwnAaba^fcrtbwadphatoba i 








Fax #: ( ) .!il^:ifl^20__ Volc« f: ( ) 

ROM: Gerri L. Ratliff , Counsel to the Deputy Attorney G eneral 
Office of the Deputy Attorne y General Room «421S-^ 
U.S. Department ot Justic e. Main Justice Building 
Washington. S.C. 20530 

FAX » : (202) S14-907'; Voice %: (202) 514 - 3392 


Nc-ie -s) : 

are nissing, pleas* call sender at the above voice nunber for rer 


Wr*. r« -H>« JNS 

►^•H»fTPk K-fc^-Ko*^ 



k"«Tl' »»^ 


^» 4^*- 

D.stvV)*- I5r'»<?«>r3. 



tfk ««su:«<» 

4*^-»- i 

.^>«ita. su>'« 


Subject Citizenship USA ^ I Dim 

MAR 26 1996 


Edward McEIroy Fiom Office of the 

District Director. New Yodc Deputy Commissioner 

Brian Penyrnan 

Actiag District Director, Chicago 

Walter Cadman 
District Director, Miami 


Thomas Schiltgen _^ 

District Director, San Francisco 

Richard Rodgcrs 

District Director. Los Angeles 

In the interest of augmenting our current efforts to ftiminatr the backlog of luxunlizKdon 
applications under Citizenship USA and its designation as a retnvenDon laboratory, I am delegating 
full authority to you to determine arkd utilize the most appropriate. e9q>edieiit methods to recruit and 
hire temporary employees for this purpose. 

F'in^i"g ]lKrTi**ir The five primary target districts participating in the Citizenship USA 
initiative are allocated fiiading increases, as displayed on th* worksheets at Attachment 1 . These 
enhaneements represent a 20 peicem increase over current Natnralizadon and Information and 
Records program fimcfing levels already provided to the district offices in their base Fiscal Year (FY) 
96 budgets, as weU as that provided tfaiou^ the FY 96 Exams Fee Reprogtamming. 

Flgiritiilit v in Spend iny Each'of yoQ has disGTCtiaaary aodiarity to switch funds in your 
naturalization budget between PS&B and OE lines, as needed, tq accomplish iidtiative goals and 
objectives. Plane note that the regional offices wiHoontimiB to hold PSftBfimds on your bdudl 
Regional staff will rxfmtc any necessary transactions tat this purpose x^mo your notice. 

District Dfaectocs dwuld develop operatintt plans to achieve the stated'goals and objectives 
of Citizenship USA. Pte^e stibmit copies of these plans to the Regioital Directors and the HQ 
Citizenship USA project office (or dwir leftreace;. 

Page 2 

District Ditecton 



Hiriny: The objective is to hire Additional, tempotaiy District Ai^udications Officers, GS- 
S/7/9, and AppKcations Clerics, GS-4/5, as quiddy as possible. Consider unng shift woiK oveiiime, 
and other altenutivea. You should d ftwrninB the specific n u mbers of employees or contracted cleAs 
your rnhaivwrt budget will pennit. 

It should be noted that district offices are not audwrized to convert any temporary positions 
into pennaoent positions. Do not allow Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) considerations to constrain 
your recruiting and hiring of temponiy personoel in support of this initiative. Should you have 
available resources (PS&B or GE), you may exceed your FTE ceilings. The Office of Budget has 
detennined that in die event that the INS were to extted its FTE ceiling in FY 96,,tbe Department 
of Justice and INS would ensure that these FTE were covered. 

It is inqterative that you begjn recruitment at once. Appointments to dwse Citizenship USA 
positions should not exceed 6 months, however, the appointments may be extended at a later date. 
Based on our review, you may want to staff positions using one or a combination of the following 

a • detailing employees fiom other Federal agencies; 

b - hiring leen^iloyed annuitants with waiw of annuity of&et; 

c • using District resources coupled wiA e^^edited procedures fornew temporary hires; 

d • requesting Adminislzative Center support coupled with expedited procedures; ot 

e - using Office of Personnel Management (0PM) support servicea; 

Steps and '-■tifwtg^ timetables for options c-« above are listed in Attachment 2. Funding 
for OPMrecrmtmentsaviceswiQba provided eenirally by Headqpatten. Representatives &om the 
National P erfbimau ce Review team are exploring avnlabiliqf of noo-ieiinbuisable details fiom other 
Federal acencies to augment the immber of petsonndists you nuty need for dus project. 

Prog Teatinf : To ejqiedilB drug testing under the Citizeoshv USA project, the contactor 
win provide you with (be kits and custody documents to be pvcn to sdectees. You can tbea scad 
the iattvidnl ^ncity to titra d aslgpa fd collection site, wfaidt eliminates trying to locatt the 
se te ctees after dieyleawe your office. See Attaduneitt 3 for more details. 

Pwwmiigl gepnri^ A spadal sacority process win be used to screen appUcauls for ills 
tenpoiKy Ditttiet A^oAeadeu OfEoer and Applkal&ins Cleik positians, la tfaeae ptooedores, ite 
District teedva and reviews tbs requiied secuiiy package. The security ptdofa will eontaia a 
aaoaiiy ftim ($F46 or SF4SF) and OP-30fi, and two SF-S7 A fiagapiiBi ^aris, which tiic DisBtet . 
will jnaaediatelycoaipkl e f or cari mV clt c and fbiwarf to HQ Security for proeaaa&n. TheDlnkt 
wOl icialu a copy of tna saconiy fbm and con|iiete the Tmpioymcitf and pmunal icnicuee fncfta 
(widdnlOdiQrs). Baaed oa the jecdpi of the security form and fingatprittt charts frant.thelXstikt, 



District Diiecton 


HQS«urilywffleM«lb.ipi4fc«tiBioPERSECS.coiiiptetetcwdacheek. request FBI ehecki. 
aDdn^aMaaOPMbadcpaiiiidiovcsdgBiaa. TlieDistriawUl notify HQSecuriiy of the lesulti 
of the envloyiaeia ad pcaooal nte«m dw^et.- If ta of the ibove dMda an &vonMe; UO 
Security vrOItiotlfy the Wstifath-awihferhM beat epiwwed. and the 
widdn 10 caleadar dqrl No appHcaw tiiay be grMted Security EOD qjprovil imtil juceesiful 
co nqtletJ onofanphuaofdicwiimptDcas^ U, review ofsecari^ form (SF- 86 or SF-SSP) FBI 
fingnpriittchedccnttehedcandeiivlaynNataiidpenaaalicftreBceschedcs. Attadiment4fiiny 
describes tb^ security procen. 

Canlnfling Ollt Offices thould tut conttact out for these Adjudicstion Officers without 
ftoTher notice. 

If you have say questions, poinu of contact aie Budget (Field Operations) -Joe Moore 
(202) 303-46S9; Personnel - Nancy Weiss (202) 514-0*96; and Security - Gloria Scott 
(202)514-4985. ^ 

. OLyU 


Dqiuty Commisrioaer 


oe: Bagienal Dizecton 



! 2 % ?" I 3 



i i 8 8- 8 


i 1 1 1 § § 

















Auehor: Albert Cora at OVraOTCS 
Oat*: 3/27/96 2:SS PM 


waa that $10 bat about Kally QlrlsT I'm having trouble raawabaring thac pare 
oC It. 

Tot Albart Oora, Blalna^C. KaBarck. bob atona at npr • CCMUn.. 

Laurla Lyons at npr • CCMAZI. 
eei ' 

Proax doug farbrothar at npr • CCMAIL 
Datai 01/26/96 11:00:00 PM 
Subject: INS 

Today C hrta Salea delegated hiring authority to the five cities and 
— mdreas ed their budgets by 20%. She also atreamllned th e background 
clearance proceaa aome but atill anticipatea a itcnth ana a Mit to two 
months to get people on board. 

At the same time, ahe exoreaalv prohibited the moat promising way we ha d 
ot getting good interviewers on board fast -- u aing temporary^servlce 
•a genciea (like Kelly girla ) . We found aome that IgteHtllH 1ft iuppiylng 
Voung lawyers -- bright young people %rtwse records are clean enough to 
have recently passed the bar. Her lawyer was concerned that tula la too 
much a ■govamnental function* to use contractors. I can think of several 
waya around that problea. 

If this were the early days of reinvention, I'd recoamend IM S for a haaxaer 
~award7 "" B ut it is the %«anina aonths of the first terra and 1 atlli aai r-t 
- thUK tne city < i <r-mt^r^ t.-.^ »,.,»^|K f-^mmAr^fQ An the lob. The more thev 
ha ve to contend with ^'t ilttv^^'^* *'tn fewer eitlxena they'll produce, 
sorry, Blalaie, ynu ow< ■■ 11 n 

I reconne nd that you ask Porta Melssner to give the five city mana gers -• 
""experience d SKSs every one -- the authority to decide; . 
wne tner or not to use tenp aervlce s 

- nowmich background checking to d o on their people 

- whic h "iHS rolea and reqa should be'wtlve d. 

I'm meeting with other agency managers in tA and San Francisco this we e k, 
trying to get them to dooate people. I'll let you know how that goea.' 



doug farbfothaf at npr 9 CCMAIL 
OSn 9/98 09:43 AM 

To: Oab Smith 


Subjact: R«: R*|21: INS 

W€w Forward Item: 

Promt M.berc Gore at OVPtiOTES 
D«C«: 1/28/96 7:03PM 
To: doug farbrocher at NPR 
Subjact: Re: Re(2l: IMS 

New Text Item: Re: Re(2) : INS 
We'll explore it. Thanks. 

To: Albert Gore 

cc: Elaine C. Kamarcic, bob stone at npr • CCMAIL, Laurie Lyons at 

npr • CCMAIL 
From: doug farbrother at npr • CCMAIL . 
Datat 03/28/96 03:31:00 AM 
Subject: Re (2] : INS 

New Text Item: Re: INS 

N o air, the bet wa« not ju«t about Kelly qirl«. I had bet Bla ine that IH S 
tteadgtt arter« would not gWe their — negere In IiO« AngeXee, San FraBclaco. 
ehtemna. Haw Tor fc, and Miami en ough a uthority, in general, to make m e 
contident thev could produce > m ix xion new cltixene befor e election day. 
Onfortunately, I wae right . \ ' : — 

Whet thefiTe city nanagera need ia coa^lete authority to' waive any IMS 
rule, provided they atay within the law. That's not at risky as it might 
sound. The people in charge o£ the five cities are very experienced and 
very conservative. Z couldn't get them to take big chances if Z used a 

The kind oC broad delegation Z want has precedenti GSX and Co^aarea have' 
both given that, authority to their Reinvention Labs -- and not a single, 
thing has gone wrong. 

Here's the sort oC thing that could go right if ZHS would give its- 
front line managers that authority. 

- They could get workers on the job gulcklyt they ce«ald run a 'help 

wanted' ad in the local paper, interview 
and hire people on the spot, start training them the next day,, and 
simultaneously run a quick National Agency Check on them to see Ifi they 
have a record. That is precisely what the National Archives* s Federal 



...^ ..U01.C •Btpioyaaa handl* th« vary •■•• IMS ClXaa 
in th« vary aaMa bulldiag with fcha CMS oparatlon aouth oC LX. 

Bu t IMS haadquartara la attH tnaiatlno oo a hiring an d elaaranea procaaa 
tha t ~wm taka wall cvar a aonth to aat pa opla an »»a«gy -• -btm Lh«y Bt^n 
to do background Invaatlgationa juat liteo tha Datanaa Daaart— a> ^Ml frtr 
€0 9 aaerat elaaranea •• Inraatlgationa that won't bo CLniahad until afitoc 
Cha projoet la eeaplata and tho paepla aro ott tha rolaa •- InTaatlgationa 
that eoa^ thouaanda oC dollars aaeh that could bo apont proeaaalng 

Spaad in hiring and elaaranea la a vniT BZO doal baeauaa IMS la 
axparlanclng high attrition in thaaa taaporary joba. 

- Local managara could chooaa to uaa taap aarvleaa (hera'a tho Kally 
Girla) . Contracta ara alraady in placa, and good, rallabla paoplo-eould 
ba on tha job in a faw daya. Kvan 'inharantly govammantal funetiona,* 
Ilka cltlzanahlp datanlnationa can ba handlad by contract wockara undar 
the propar auparvialon. 

- Tha Clva city managara could atop waatlng tlaa and s>anpowar following 
obsolata cagulationa. For axaapla, IHS raga raqulra that avary 
naturalization cartlficata ba Xaroxad and a hard copy put in tha arehlvad 
£ila, avan though a computar racord axlata. Hara'a anothar: clarka hava to 
kaap a handwritten ladgar of avary graancard that' a collactad at tho 
awaaring-in caraaoniaa, avan though tho carda ara ahraddad and. again, 
thara la a coaiputar racord. Z'va hoard lota oC axaaploa Ilka thaao from 
tha field managara and dozana mora would aurfaea iC thoy had authority to 
change thinga . 

Tha way it la now, to gat rallaf from obaoloto ruloa, tho flold maaagora 
hava to play 'Mother may Z?* with haadquartars -- and tho anawor la ae 
often 'No, you may not.* that they avmntually give up. 

- They could do aoma aiaplo automation. For axampla. aaeh naturalisation 
cartlficata haa a photo gluod to It, eaboaaod by hand (Ilka a notary 
public aeal) , and ataapad with Doria Kalaanor'a algnatura. That all. takes 
a lot of time, money, and manpower that could bo devoted to Interrlowing 
appllcanta. But headquarters la alow to adopt digital photoa (like you 
have on your driver' a lieenae) and they won't permit Doria 'a aignaturo to 
be digitized ao that it eaa bo laaar printed instead of ataapod on tha 
eartifieataa. Lots of modara technology eoold bo locally grafted to tho 
centrally prograamod system If headquartera would allow it. 

I^ c ould go oa. But tho point is that, unless wo blast TtKM he« |jam»»-*'«r« 
" "ToSao from thoir grip om tho fron tllao managors. wo aro golaa ''-^ hlTi *T*Y 
t oo many peop le still waiting tor citisonshxp in Wcryombor. 

I can't make Doris Malasnor delegate broad authori ty to hor flold 
managers. Can youT 



UUU9 lararoUMT at npr 9 CCMAIjL 
09/19/9* Of :32 AM 

To: 0«b SoWth 


Subiaet: In cas* w« doo't eannaet by phona. 

Maw Forward It— i 
-............^.-.................^ Forwardad -----------------•---------....... 

Proai doug CaxbrotlMT at npr 

Datat 3/39/9C 13t37PM 

•Tot KlalxM C. Kaa»rck at lOVjOvtf 

*To: bob atona at npr 

Sub j act: In caaa wa don't eonnact by phona. 

Maw Taxt Ita«! Taxt_l 
hara ara two idaaa: 

To blunt any charga tha t wa ara running a c ltlienship/Cllnton voter mill . 
' 1 am worxing witb tha FBI to find a way co tighten up the ridiculoualy 
" l ooaa iingarprinc cn aoc ayacaa, i.e. INS doesn't know wno'a prlnr»~thay 
hava. tha prints ara ottan too aaudged for the FBI to read, and It»S alaply 
" aaaumaa that avarything ta okay it thay. hear nothing trom VtiL (umeU la 
90% ot tha tin>a>«. A breakthrough hara will loolc goo d to the anti-aliim 
lobb y. 

Kath ar that havlag — app— r te ba working against Doria, put ma t o work 
" forliirl Hav Chris 8l a« into an6Char job (Ilka Deputy Dirac tor~T5r 

-P WariM IB CMWai JBa kkkM mm tba IMS Deputy Coaml aaionar. 

■ n6m thar». I coMld do ■ar*. t atT^Ti *nd I could a6LV« CRa at rporfc 

probl— toow '■ - 


»rlertty'r' iioraal 

TO I Dou9 rarbrothar 

CC: Blalna C. Kamarck ae e0P_0VP 

Sub j ace I Ra: INS 

-. ... ... . Maaaaga Coataata 


yaa-.ualaaa Dori» cooMa to aaa you aa har paraon. or ualaaa ah* gata appeintad 
•abaaaader to Ruritanla 

Raply Saparator 

Sub j act: INS 

Author; doug farbrothar at npr 

Data: 4/1/9S 7:51 PM 

I jnada a ewa prograaa gatting tha INS oteicaa aoaa halo from g eh.r 
aqanctaa in LX a nd FrUco, but thay ara attll gattlng way too nnich 
inr^rt«r»n<;» ^rom hg4 ^^^um^^.«I». <u» i going to hava Icaap dragging that 
h«H and chain rpward tha Ilniah llna? ' *~ 


Author: Terrance M O'Reilly at HQBOR 

Date: 5/29/9S 11:47 AM 

Priority: Normal 

TO: Jim C Booe at WRO-003 

TO: Lani A Camilli at ERG- 002 

TO: David L Roarlc at SRO-001 

Subject: Potential Detailees from the Dept. o£ Energy 

Message Contents 


Our friends at the NPR have been out recruiting Qovemment agencies 
^for empioveea who are either oeing rifcq or are planne d to be part of 
a furlough. Under any such plan, INS would picK up aalarv eoac u6 CO — 
"our hignest joumeymem grade in CUSA and INS would pick up detail 
cost. The giving agency would would continue to pick up benefit cost 
and any salary cost over and above what we would pay. 

The Department of Energy is going to be furloughing people this year 
and they have come up with 57 volunteers (both clerical and officer 
types) . They have given their preferences as to where they would like 
to be detailed and most are on the west coast. 

We have also had inquiries from the Selective Service regarding making 
people available, although there have been limited discussions nothing 
has been agreed upon. 

This E-Mail is an informal communication to see if amy of the regions 
may need more detailees. We could also bring these people on board 
and let the Service Center detailees go back to their duty station. 

Please provide me with your thoughts. 



Memo for President Clinton 

Subject: Improving Service for Citizenship Applicants 


You asked us to expedite the naturalization of nearly a million legal aliens 
who have applied to become citizens. INS had begun last year gearing up to 
process the growing backlog of applicants but, largely because of 
bureaucratic delays, has nek made much of a dent in it yet 

Members of my National Performance Review staff have been working to 
remove the bureaucratic roadblocks so that INS offices in Los Angeles, San 
Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Miami can quickly double or triple their 
production. Examples of the roadblocks include: hiring procedures that 
were takinsj months followed by employee background investigations that 
were taking more months (we have now speeded it all up some), 
prohibitions against using temp agencies, lime-wasting procedures requiring 
paper records that duplicate computer records, cumbersome centralized 
control over computer systems, the list goes on. Hardly any of the 
roadblocks are statutory; we have the administrative authority to remove 
most them. 

But. I NS Comm i ssioner Doris Meissner warns that if we are too aggres sive 
at removing the roadblocks to success, we might be publicly criticiz ed for 
runninj^ a pr6-Democrat voter mill and even risk having Congress stop us. 
I ndeed, many of the roadblocks originate with her own INS staff -- people 
who might well complain if we waive the regulations and procedure s they 
have created and followed for years — people whose complaints might se em 
credible to the publi c. 

I see two options: 

Option 1. To gel anywhere near a million applicants naturalized before the 
summer is out. we are clearly going to have to force some serious 
"reinvention" on INS. I believe we can reduce — hut not eliminate — the 
risk of controversy over our motives bv aboointing one of our proven N PR 
reinventors at j P«?n"'V '*^^ Cnmrgii^inn-r t^*'* ■—"■»"» Hopmy f puld be 
useful elsewhere in the administration ~ with B arrv McAffirv. for example.) 
As pan of the otTicial INS management team, ou r rcinventor would ha ve 


more direct intluence and the INS staff would be loss likely to go publ ic ^^* 
with complaints than they would over the interference of an outsider. 

We should be putting proven reinventors into lots of agencies anyway. 
Having people who don'i "get it" in top jobs has turned out to be ReGo's 
number one stumbling block.. 

Option 2. Our other optiorf is to avoid any controversy over speeding up 
naturalization by letting the standard bureaucracy do the best it can. We 
will, of course, lend whatever help we can within the system. INS will be 
able to gear up production slowly, but a lot of people will still be waiting for 
their citizenship papers for a long time. 



To: Elaine Kamarck 



From : Ooug Farbroth«r 


Q4V10/96 ', 

Subject: Microsoft Word - INSCLTN.DOC 


Pages (including cover): 5 


Here's my draft of the INS option paper 


Memo for President Clinton J^» 

Subject: Improving Service for Citizenship Applicants 

ISo S^.rn?JI^^ *' aatumlizaUon of nearly a million legal aliens 
who have appUed to become citizens. INS had begun last year eLrin-^ »« 

process tl«growii,gbacklog.ofappUcantsbutJarieryb«aS^5r * P 
bureaucrauc delays, has not made much of a dent in it yet 

Members of my NaUonal Performance Review staff have been workinR to 
remove the bureaucratic roadblocks so that INS offices in Us AngdL In 
Francisco. Chicago. New York, and Miami can quickly double or S^eir 
producuon. Hardly any of the roadblocks are statutory, we have the 
admmistrative authority to remove most them. 

But. INS warns that if we are too aggressive at removing the roadblocks to 
null and even nsk havmg Congress stop us. Indeed, many of the roadblocks 

Ow regulauons and procedures they have created and followed for year^ -L 
people whose complaints might seem credible to the public. 

IlTL^i^ vT^*^' P"" °"^ ~'" °f *="="' controversial actions that 
we could take to expedite processing. We'd like your guidance. 

years of residency, basic knowledge of English and Civics, and good moral 

b^T^.":.!?*"'^°^**"'"^*""^"^*°« But INS adjudicators ha^ 
broad lautude to mterpret those standards and decide who meets them. INS 

educating- the older ones, to be more liberal. 

^™^?'''.?^°"'"""^ *" '"PP™'''=^ '»' *»»« f'"' interview. Another 1 5% 
'^I^'r^'^^^^^'^^^-^^^^i^h^ndCmcs longeroTbari ' 

15H could be appro^«l quicker if the adjudicators were more liberal. 

Sl^^!!!!l!'*^.'^'™*^°**j"**'«=»'°"inay object publ^^^^ • 
interference with their judgment In fact, charges that we are lowering 



sundards appeared recently in USAToday and were the subject of Dave 
Leiterman's Top Ten List: Number one question on the new citizenship test, 
"Fill in the blank: U. S. _" 



. Other 

Delegate authority to local managers: A basic cause of processing delays 
in the five cities is the constant interference of INS headquarters, all with ilie 
best of intentions. This problem is not unique to INS; it's one of the key 
challenges of government reinvention. Examples of the INS roadblocks 
include: hiring procedures that were taking months followed by employee 
drug tests, fingerprint and credit checks, and in-depth background 
investigations that were taking more months (we have now speeded it all up 
some), prohibitions against using temp ageiKies, time-wasting procedures 
requiring paper records that duplicate computer records, cumbersome 
centralized control over computer systems, the list goes on. 

One quick solution is to delegate to the senior INS manager^ in the fi ve riti«>» 
b road authority to waive headquarters rules. It^s not as risky as it sounds. 
^veral agency heads, including the Chief of Naval Operations, have 
delegated that kind of authority without embarrassment or ill effects. In fact, 
the five INS field managers are such experienced and conservative people 
that we would have to keep encouraging them to use their new authority 

However, there will likely be criticism from the headquarters staff and their 
counterparts on the Hill that 'things are out of control.* 

PRHsiDnNTUi. Outdance: Yns 



Put headquarters to work: The most immediate problem in the field is that 
they doot have enough people processing the applications; each city could 


use another 100-200 people immediatdy. Meanwhile, there are 1,800 people 
in INS headquaiten, busily guiding the field. 

We could detail SCO or moie of die headquaiten employees (rotating them 
monthly) tote five dtia to process citiniiship applications. Thecostof 
their tiavd and living allowaiaoes would be oCbet by savings from not having 
to hire and do background dwcks on additional lempotaiywotken. INShaa 
detailed headquaiten peopte'to the Gdd on a smaller scale in the past 

The advantage is getting people on the job without the delays of recruiting, 
hiring, and background checking. The dowiuide is that enough headquarters 
people might not want to go. And. of course, those that do go would leave 
their important headquarters work temporarily uiKk>ne. 

PRESiDEhfTiAL Guidance: Yes 




Use legal services temp agencies: There are teihp agertcies that specialize 
in supplying youi\g lawyers. We could procure their services quickly 
through temp agency contracts already in place. They would be an excellent 
source of bright, ettergetic workers of good character. As contractor 
employees, they could not make the firul decision granting citizenship — 
that is a governmental fimction that must be done by a government 
employee. But they could interview the applicanta. test their knowledge of 
English and Civics, check the FBI reporf^ and make a recommendation that 
would be approved by a government employee. That process could handle 
the vast majority of applicanta who qualify easily. 

To use legal services temp agencies effectively, we would have to \vaive 
OPM rules that limit duration U> three months for the total projea and 45 
days for any individual lawyer, federal employee uniotu are sensitive about 
theserules. We would also accept the lawyers' recent admission to the bar as 
evidence of their tiustworthiness. and skip the usual checks INS does on new 

PREsnxKiiALOtaDAicE: Yes • 




Make more money available: If we succeed in gearing up the process 
dranutically soon, we will need to make more money available before the 
end of the fiscal year. The cost of processing citizenship is covered by 
application fees, not appropriated fiinds. But Congress still gets in on the 
act The fees go into a receiving account (which now contains STK million) 
and cannot be transferred int^ a spending account until INS has notified 
Congress and waited IS days. At least, that is the legal requirement The 
practice has been to wait as long as it takes to gain the written approval of 
the appropriation committees; the last time took four months. Requiring that 
kind of Congressional approval of Executive Branch decisions was ruled 
unconstitutional by ihe Supreme Court decades ago, ironically in the case of 
Chadda vs. INS 

If we need more money quickly, we could begin spending 1 5 days at\er 
nolitying Congress of the transfer. But breaking with the unconstitutional 
tradition of waiting for committee aproval, which is the common practice 
between all agencies and their appropriation subcommittees, will really raise 
hackles on the Hill. Retaliation would probably take the form of stringent 
new controls in next year's appropriation bills. We can fight that kmd of 
thing with line item vetoes but creatiw minds on the Hill will search tor 
some way to get even. 



Other ' 



Improving Service for Citiixii«hip Appllointi 


ou oslccd us to expedite (he naturalization of nearly a million legal aliens who have 
applied to become citizens. INS had begun lost year gearing up to process the growing 
backlog of applicants but, largely because of bureaucratic delays, has not mado much of a 
dent in it yet. 

Members of my National Ferformancc Review staff have been working to remove the 
(I- bureaucratic roadblocks so that INS offices in I-os Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New 
■^ York, and Miami can quickly double or triple their production. Hardly any of the 

roadblocks are statutory, we have the adminislraiivc authority to remove most them. 

But, INS warns that if we are too uggres.sive at removing the roadblocks to better service, 
we might be publicly criticized for running a pro-Democrat voter mill and even risk 
having Congress stop us. Indeed, many of the roadblocks originate with the INS staff — 
people who might well complain ifwc waive the regulations and procedures they havo 
created and followed for years — people whose complaints might seem credible to the 

This paper describes the pro.s and cons of Cvc controversial actions that we could take to 
improve service. We'd like your guidance. 

1, Delegate anthoiily to local managcn: A basic cause of delays in the five cities is the 
constant interference of INS headquarters, all done with the best of mtentions. This 
problem is not unique to INS; it's one of the key challenges of government reinvcotlon. 
Examples of the INS roadblocks include: hiring procedures that were taking months 
followed by employee drug tcsLi, fingerprint and credit checks, and background 
invcs(igaiion.<t tl)al woo taking more months (wu have now speeded it all up some), 
prohibitions against using temp ogeneies, timC'Vmsting procedures requiring paper 
records that duplicate computer records, tight control of computers, the list goes on. 

One quick solution is to delegate to the senior INS managers in the five cities broad 
authority tu waive hcadquaiten rules. It's not as risky as it sounds. Several agency 
heads, including the Chief of Naval Operations, have delegated that kind of authority 
without embairassmeol or ill effi:cts. In fact, the Ave INS field managers are such 
experienced and conservative people that we would have to keep encouraging them to use 
their new authority boldly. 

However, there wilt likely be critici.<«m from the headquarters staff and their countetparts 
on the Hill that "things are out of control." 






2. Put headquarter* to work: The mosit immediate problem in the field is that (hey 
don't have enough people processing the appliculions; each city could use another 100> 
200 people immediately. Meanwhile, there are 1,800 people in INS headquarters, busily 
guiding the field. 

We could detail 500 or more of tic headquarters employees (rotating them monthly) to 
the five cities to process citizenship applications. Tlic cost of their travel and living 
Allowances would be offset by saving.^ from not having to hire and do background chocks 
on additional temporary workers. INS has detailed headquarters people to the field on a 
smaller scale in the post 

llie ndvnntnge is getting people on the job without the delays of recruiting, hiring, and 
background checking. The downside is that enough headquarters people might not want 
to go. And, of course, those that do go would leave their important headquarters work 
lemporurily undone. 

Guidance: Yes 




3. Get other agcnclet to pitch ini In the five cities where INS needs the most help, other 
federal ugcncie.1 like IRS, VA, and Social Security have large numbers of employees. We 
have tt.sked them to detail some of their workers to INS. So far, we haven't gotten many, 
even when INS offered to pay. The other agencies all have work of their own to do. 

\iyou asked the Cabinet and other agency heads, they might be more willing to detail 
people to INS. Dut, we might also get accused of slowing down tax refunds, veteran* 
benefits, and social security payments. 




4. Us* legal service* temp agencies: There are temp agenciex that specialize in 
.supplying young lawyers. We could procure their services quickly through temp agency 
contracts already in place They would bo an excellent source of bright, energetic 
^ workers of gmnl character. As contractor employees, they couldn't make the decision 
X granting citizenship — that is * governmental (Unction that must be done by government 
employees. But they covld interview the applicants, test their knowledge of Ilnglith and 
Civics, check Uie FBI report, and make a nwommemluiion that would be approved by a 
government employee. That process could handle the va^ majority of af^licanl* v^ 
qualify easily. 


To use legal services temp agencies cfTectively. wc would have to waive 0PM rules that 
limit duration to three months for the total project and 45 days for any individual lawyer, 
federal employee unions are senxJtlvo about these rules. We would also accept the 
lawyers' recent admission to the bar as evidence of their trustwonhinesx, and skip the 
usual checks INS docs on new employees. 

Guidance Yes i_ 




5. Make more money available: If we succeed in gearing up the process dramatically 
soon, we will need to make more money available before the end of the fiscal year. The 
cost of processing citiTsnship is covered by application fees, not appropriated funds. Rut 
Congress still gets in on the act The fees go into a r«c«iving account (which now 
contains SIX. million) and cannot be transferred into a spending account until INS has 
notified Congress and waited 15 days. At least, that is the legal requirement Tlie 
practice haa been to wail as long as i( takes to gain the written approval of Iho 
appropriation committees; the last time took four months. Requiring that kind of 
Congressional approval of Executive Branch decisions was ruled unconstimtional by tha 
Supreme Couit yean ago, ironically in the case of Chadha vs. INS. 

If we need more money quickly, we couJd begin spending 1 5 days after notifying 
Congress of the transfer. But breaklne with the unconstinnional tradition of waiting tor 
committee aproval, which is the common practice between all agencies and their 
oppropriatioa subcommittees, will really raise^iacUes on the Hill. Retaliation would 
probably lake tho form of stringent new controls in next year's appropriatioi) bills. Wo 
can fight that kind of thing with line item vetoes but creative minds on the Mill will 
search for some way to get even. 

Guidance: Yes 




Memorandum to the Vice President 

From: Elaine 

Re: Lunch with the President and INS progress 

Date: April 4, 1996 ^ 

As you know, following on the assignment from the 
President to look int o the citizenship backlog. I sent Dou g 
, Farbrother~omtT5~7oad to each of the offices where the 
_ backlog was most severe. He found a set of extensive 
bureaucratic obstacles such as: 

• hiring procedures that were taking months followed by 
background investigations that were also taking months, 

• time-wasting procedures that use paper records to 
duplicate computer records and, 

• cumbersome centralized control over computer 

None of the obstacles identified were statutory; all were 
bureaucratic and stemmed from a highly centralized internal 
administrative system at INS. 

We have concentrated on removing the internal 
obstacles so that INS could hire the temporary INS agents 
they were authorized by Congress to hire in January. At our 
suggestion INS is: 

• streamlining the full background investigation; 

• using lists other than those generated by OPt^ here in 
Washington in order to hire from (these lists tend to be 
obsolete quickly); 

• sending 5 0PM personnelists directly to the affected 
cities to process the applications quickly; 

With these changes INS estimates that they can get an 
additional 200 agents on the job in the 5 key cities by the 
third week in April. 



In addition, INS is: 

• making arrangements to hire federal workers from 
other agencies. This is very important since these workers 
already have security clearances and are apt to be of a higher 
quality . So far IRS in San Francisco. DOE in liiinnig an <i jj 22_ 
Angeles, SSA in New York hay eotfered federal' employees a s 
de tails, either on a full time oT~on an Qve rt Trng basis; 

• moving $200,000 in extra money to each city to be 
used, at the discretion of the Director, to help with the 

The most immediate problem has been getting the 
agents hired that INS is allowed to hire. There is no excuse 
for this other than pure bureaucratic inertia. INS has also 
asked the field for plans as to how they would work to the full 
capacity of their physical plant. That means seeing applicants 
seven days a week and during expanded office hours 
(probably 10 to 12 hour days.) 

Only^bv working 7 day^ a wap.k and longer hoiira nan wf> 
ho pe to make a significant pinntigh dent in the backlog that it 
will show UP when it mattp>r<i 

There are other, more dramatic steps that could be 
taken. But as of this date, INS can't tell us the exact nature of 
the backlog. We have sent Steve Butterfield over there (he 
runs our data base at NPR) to redesign their system. Doug 
has also come up with a list of more radical ideas to use but 
these ideas are not without their political downsides. 1 had 
asked Doris to prepare a decision memo to the President tha t 
would list these steps and give the pros and cons . Given that 
her husband has just died much of this is now up in the air. 

41-503 97-7 






AcnvK cmzpCTnp camzaipn 




TU.«1I-$M4T74 FAX ItUU^yn 



Etaine Kamarch 
Onicc of the Vice President 
Die White House 
Wuhiogton DC. 20050 

Etaine Kamarch. 

Thank you Tor your assistance In our six month .battle to reo-eaie the Immlgraiion and / 

Natural! Tation Service. Although thse is still much that needs to be dooe, your assistance has assured/ 
significant viaories. W ith your sup poct. ih e lAFs Active Cit'aenship Campaigp pressured INS to: ^ 

* streamline the hirine process ofofficcn so (hat the^.are hired locally and not through DC 

* iricrease the outreach slalT from one team to three teams 

* ootnmit an additional Sl.OOO.OOO. to eUffltnate the baddog 

* extend \wedc day hours interviews 

* initiate Saturday iDtervie«« 

* and reduoe the vraitlnt time for applicants from one ]«ar to sbc months. 

Elltaii Kaaaitii co May 1. 199« at Our Lady of Lourdes Parish in Los Angeles. District Dirixmr 
RoBcn has agreed to meet with 1000 leaden of (he Active Qtizeashlp Campaign. At that time, ACQ 
leaders will ask for a commlucoit Gram Mr. Rogers to diminaic. the currou badclog of 229.000 
appHcatioas by Scptonbcr 30. 1994. In a pre^oeeting. Mr. Rogers hinted that he b predispeaed to make 
that public annoimconait. In rrrhangr ACC has apeed to suspad pubUc actions mless the INS docs 

not hold up their side of the deal. Thl* vifltwy mAA m«n «« m«ny «« y?^ OQO ng» ettlTCTt vnriwp 111 

I m Anfgte* thU NnMrmt» Ow opoatioos In Saa Fnudsoo. Chicaco and New Yock report the Same 
commitment being made: WtrinMlly wmg «nn nnt> will hemnw drfrm* in llme fhr the rigertow 

Mtieh is Still left to be done. The lAFs Aolve Cltlzoiship Campaicn will ontinoe Its eObrts to 
insure that applicatianssufaminedbdbrcluly 4, 1996.wiUbeadjudlcated IntimctovoteiaNovattbcr. In 

addition. IWS ftlTiei«h h»we tlt»Ar » rgry iwf l« W«Alnpnw ITT fnr m »H<tifinw«l •)«>/. miwr Ti>€r«»rg In 

deal with the bKklog. ACC (opporu dUs requesL I request your assistance in tfab area with 
CommissoRV MdisMr. 

Sincerely younc 

Fr. Mlguet Vega 

Direetor Active Chixendiip Campaign 


35. ^ 

Subject Naturalization Process Changes 


MAY - I I9S6 

'^° AJl Regional Directors f"" OflBce of Examinations 

All District Directors 
All OflBcers-in-Charge 
All Service Center Directors 

Since naturalization was identified as a major reinvention effort in April, 199S, the Service 
has undertaken a complete review of the naturalization process and identified areas which can be 
streamlined to increase our ability to provide more efficient and effective customer service to 
naturalization applicants. 

To achieve maximum results in the quickest time period and to improve the quality of our 
work, we have devdoped guidelines fisr streamlining the naturalization process. These guidelines are 
based on numerous cUscussions and meetings of Service field staf^ regional offices and Headquarters 
as well as outside subject experts, community-based organizations, and focus-groups. The 
recommendations of new ideas and innovative procedures that have resulted firom such discussions 
have been tested at various Citizenship-USA pilot sites with remarkable results. In view of the 
successes of the pilot sites, our desire is to expand these new initiatives Servicewide to all offices. 

The attached memorandum highlights these guidelines for the streamlined naturalization 
process. Most of the action items can be implemented immediately. Others that have major long- 
term effects may take longv to implement. Service personnel are encouraged to follow these 
guidelines and modify them as necessary, in keeping with the stated goals of the initiative as well as 
to fit the particular needs of each office. However, to ensure consistent implementation of general 
policy guidelines, district offices are required to notify the Office of Field Operations (HQOPS) and 
the Benefits DivisioQ (HQBENX thtbugh the appropriate channels, of any modification that they wish 
to undertake. 

It should be noted that in the search for these solutions, every effort has been made to ensure 
consistent treatment of all applicants and to protect the integrity and dignity of the natunlization 

auis D. Crocettr^ 
Associate Commisaoner 






L Appiicatioo 

IL Adjadicatioa 

nL Processing 

IV. Oath Ceremonies 








1 1 • 

o 6 « B 'V 

I I 







8 8| 
Is tJ 








11 -I 

S.».B ft 




S > o 
u I S 

P 8 2 









PartL Application 
No. I 

Ketping Odr Customers Informed 

A vital part of the stepp«d-up Citizenship USA Initiative is to help our customers readily 
obtain current and accurate information on the naturalization process. 

To assure that this priority is met, the Headquarters Benefits Division is developing the 
following itenu that can be disseminated to field ofBces, community-based organizations (CBO) and 
other entities, and in some cases, individuals seeking information about the naturalization process: 

• Our naturalization pilot project is finalizing a poster stressing that applicants in the 
four key districts (LA, MLA, CHI, and NYC) must now file their N-400 at an 
appropriate Service Center, applicants are encouraged to call the 1-800 lumber for 
forms and information about where to file the N-400. Tlie poster will be distributed 
to field ofiSces, beginning in April 1996. In addition, a brocbure will be padcsged fix 
printing and dissemination during the third quarter. 

• News releases and flyers atuwering the most frequently asked questions on the 
naturafization process are being prepared fi>r distributioa to field offices, CEOs, and 
other entities during the third quarter, for example, questions range fiom how 
someone applies for citizenship, where forms can be obtained and where to file an 
applicatioiL The news releases are intended to provide accurate information to the 
public, prompting the submission of complete applications fiom persons eligible to 
seektfaebenefiL The Hradquafters Public Information Office win prepare the news 
releases and pamphlets and distribute them to the field offices, which, in turn, will 
provide the items to the general public and local CBOt. The Customer Service 
Brincfa of HQBEN will assist in mailing the information mitmals to the CBOs. 



Part L Appiicatioa 
No. 2 

N-400 Fonn Revuion 

The Service has detennmed that the current naturalization application form, N-400, is too 
complex, confiising and needs revisioa As a result, a working group is revising Form N-400 to make 
it more user friendly. The revised Form N-400 will incorporate Forms N-600 and N-643 and include 
data collection for voter regLstraiioa We are currently investigating the possibility of using the N-400 
data to produce a card size naturalization certificate and to support the Dq)artment of State in the 
issuance of United States passports. We are also reviewing the possibility of including an option 
which would allow the applicant to request a supplemental citizenship card. These are policy issues, 
however, which must be fully researched and addressed by the General Counsel's ofSce before 
implementatioii. ~ ' 

HQADN is making an eSbtt to ensure that the new N-400 will contain instructions that are 
explicit, dear, and easy to understand. Applicants will also be informed of what documents to bring 
with them to their naturalization interview to avoid uimeoessaiy delays. Revision of the N-400 will 
be expedited for earliest availability. HQADN is taigeiing August, 1996 for publication of the revised 
N-400 for public comments. 



PartL ApplicatioQ 
No. 3 

Filing N-400 Aoplicationi 

(A) Direct Mail 

The Service has detennined that filing naturalization applications (N-400) at the distria ofiSces 
results in ineffective custonter service and ineOBdent use of available resources. On January 3 1, 1996, 
the Service implemented Direct Mail in the Los Angeles, Miami, New York and Chicago Districts 
as part of the Citizenship USA initiatives. Use of Direct Mail will reduce processing times for 
adjudicating N-400s and enable the Service to provide applicants with more accurate information 
regarding their case status an efficient and expeditious manner. Direa Mail will also reduce the 
number of in-penon visits to local Service offices, thereby improving the Service's ability to provide 
better customer service. 

HQADN is in the process of expanding the Direct Mail program to include otheT types of 
applications, such as 1*765, 1-90, and I-48S for employment based applicants. These Direct Mail 
expansions will lessen dau entry and processing burdens for all district offices and enable tfaem to 
shift available resources to meet the detnands for quicker interviews and more fivquent oath 
ceremonies. The expansion ofthe Direct Mail Program is a continuing effiirt HQADN is working 
diligently towards eariy implementation of fiill Direa Mail (DM m) and to convert all offices to 
CLAIMS. In DM m, all applications, with a tew exceptions, will be mailed directly to Service 
Centers for receipting, data entry, and ac^ucficatiaa Only those applications that require an interview 
will be referred to the field offices for decisions. 

(B) 2-D Bar coding N-400. 

As a first step toward electronic filing, the Service is piloting the 2-D barcode and optical 
scanning of the N-400 application throu^ our naturalization pilot project in southern California. 
IRM and Westem Rfgion Customer Service staff are training personnel at a Los Angeles community- 
based organization (CBO) to key in infonnation on N-400s with newly developed software featuring 
the 2-D barcode. The CBO training will also help INS identify and correct problems in the barcode 
and scanning software. In na^fspnt, the CBO~will begin filhig the bar-coded applications directly 
with the Westem Service Center where the forms will be scanned optically. 

This streamfioed Direct Mail system is intended to reduce initial derical data entry, wUch will 
cut production costs, decrease keying errors, and expedite the application process. Interviews will 
be scheduled and conducted at appropriate local office sites. 

To enhance the development of a practical, expanded 2-D barcode system, a Users Group of 
INS staffand our customen is being formed to implemem the new process at other Service Centers 
during the fourth quarter aitd make the 24) barcode specifications available to potential usen. 



Part n. Adjudication 
No. 1 

Informing Applicantt of Documentation Required At Inteiview 

Cuirently, naturalization applicants are rescheduled for interviews if they M to provide 
Adjudications OfBcers with documentation necessary to condua the interview. Often the 
naturalization applicant could have provided the required documentation if he or she had prior 
knowledge that such documentation was necessary. Advising applicants for naturalization prior to 
interview of the documentation they may be required to submit at the interview can reduce the 
number of "re-interviews." 

In addition to the documentadon ^>ecified n the instructions on the N-400 application, 
applicants should be advised to bring the documents noted on the attachment to their intdView. 

OfiSces are urged to begin sending naturalization applicants this documentation list with the 
notice of interview as soon as possible. OfBces that are not on NACS can attach this documeotatiao 
Gst (firectly to the notice of interview. Iliose offices that are currently on NACS may either <iw«H the 
attached notice with the NACS mailer or separately. In the meantime, HQBEN is diligently 
investigating the possibility of having the itotices of interview Qnduding the Gsting of recpured 
documentation) printed at the Service Adjudication Centers. Hopefiilly, such notices of interview 
could be completed in the next six to eight weeks. 


Part EL Adjudication 
No. 1 Attachment 


Please briof your ADea Regiftnliaa Card (pcrmuent reaidcot card) and/or otli«r travel documeatf with you to your 

interview. In idditioo, expenence has shown thai a agmficant number of naturalization interviews have to be continued, ind 
ihe pei3on brxigbl back fix a seoood intOMew, because additional documeota are needed. The following checklist is desimed 
tohelpyoudetaTnmewhattobnngtoyouriniaview. We recommeod you complete and bring the checklist and the issoci tied 
documents with you to your interview to avoid the need for a second interview. 

I . Is your oiTcnt name different from that shown on your Alien Registratioo Card? Q Yes D No 

(If Ye*, brmg a copy of the maxriage certificate, divorce decree, court order or otber 
document that changed your name ) 

2. Have you passed a standardized naturalization test? q Yes O No 
(If Yes, bring the orJF""' test score aoace.) 

Did you attend for at least 2 years and graduate from a U.S. high school or receive a O Yes Q No 

bachelor's, master's or doctoral degree from a U.S. based college? 

(If Yet, bring a copy of your diploma.) 

Since you became a permanent resident, have you been outside the U.S. for 12 or more O Yes QNo 

months on a single (np7 

(If Yes, bring evidence to establish that you rrtiinfd your rcsideooe, such u mortgage or 

lease ageemems and your U.S. tax returns (the orignal plus a photo copy) for that period) 

Since you became a permanent resident, have you been outside the U.S fix a total of 24 Q Yes DNo 

months in the past S years (or 1 2 tTKnthi if you are applying fix naturtlizatiaa less than S 

years aAer you became a permanent rrtidmt)? 

(If Yes.bring your passport and a list of any trips not shown oo your applicatioa Ii>clude tbe 

dales ypu left and duration of each trip.) 

Have you bees anested within the S years before you filed for naturalizatioa. or sioce you O Yes Q No 

filed? (If Yea, bring a certified copies ofcourt orders or final dispositioDS fix each such 


7. Have >>Du ev<r been arrested and charged with a fdooy? 

(If Yes, bnng a certified copies of court ordgs or final disposltiops for each lucfa Brest.) 

8. Within the S years be£xe. or since you have filed your applicatico, have you ever failed to 

pay any re<;uired alimony cr child support on tiiae? 

(If Yes, brin^ copies of canceled rhrrjci. mooey order receipts and bank dnfis showing your 
payment record, along with copies of any court or guvqiim egt orden, ordering or relating to 
the required payment) 

Since you became a permanectresideat, halve you ever failed to file a fidenl. state or O Yes QNo 

local income tax return, or do you uui e ully owe back taxes, or have you ever '■l«'"'~< to be a 

nooreadent on an incocoe tax fixm? 

(If Yea, bring copies of any a a'i r . n > i ir Vrv i r relating to those ratums, and, if you did not file, 

a fiill explanation why you did not file.) 

10. Are you a male md did you beocote a lawful permanent resident prior to the age of 267 D Yes DNo 
(If Yes, bring proof you are registered with the Selective Service, if applicable) 

11. Have you been a lawful permaasntresidenoe for less than S years and did you apply fix DYes QNo 

naturalizatioa based on the £kI you are married to a U.S. Citizen? 
(If Ye*, bring evidence that your husband or wife is a U.S. Citizen (such as a birtfa certificata, 
passport or naturalizatiancertificats)aad a copy ofyour marriage certificate: Ifyoudidnot 
receive your permanent residence based on your maniage to a U. S. Citiafa, also bring 
evidence Aowmg that all your prior marriages cr all your husband or wifis's pticr matiiaga 
were legally terminated (such as divorce decrees or death certificates)). 

HA. Are you and your U.S. Citizen spouse currently separated or fux living together? Q Yes O No 

(If Yes, (y^M are not living together), bring evidence of your continued relationsfaip a* 
husband and wi&, such u a oopy of your joint tax return and evidence of joint assets such is 

bank tocounts and joint liabilities such as mortgages or credit cards.) 

12. Didyou apply for naturalization based on your service in the U S military? DYes ONo 
(Tf Yes, bring a copy of your Military Discharge Certificate. DD-214.) 



Part EL Adjudication 
No. 2 

Good Moral Character 

An applicant for naturalization must establish that he or she is a person of good moral 
character (CMC). Although good moral character is not specifically defined, it has been interpreted ' 
to mean a person's adherence to the mor^l standards of the average citizen in the community in which 
the applicant resides. 

Distria Adjudications Officers (DAO) must make a determination whether the applicant 
possesses the requisite GMC for purposes of naturalization. In making this determination, DAOs 
should primarily focus on the 5-year statutory period prior to filing of the N-400 applicatioa Part 
7 of the N-400, entitled Additional Factors of Elinbilitv. has 1 5 questions which contain most of the 
grounds for finding a lack of GMC. In addition, DAOs should always ask the applicant the following 
questions, if applicable: 

1. Have you ever &iled to pay, or reflised to pay, alimony, or &iled to comply 
with a court order to pay alimony? 

2. Have you ever &led to pay, or refiised to pay, child support or &iled to 
comply with a court order to pay child support? 

If an applicant admits to having committed or been arrested, sentenced, or convicted for any 
crimes or offenses in violation of the law, or if the file contains evidence of any crimes or oflFenscs, 
DAOs must focus on the number and type of ofiBaoses to detennine whether the applicant lacks GMC 
based on this evidence. 

DAOs should note that a person will ahvsys lack GMC if, during the S-year statutory period, 
he has committed one or more 'crimes involving moral turpitude* (CIMT). The most common 
definition of a CIMT is 'an aa of baseness, vileoess or depravity in the private and social duties which 
a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general, contrary to the accepted atul customary rule 
of right and duty between man and man.' Attached is a checklist of some of the crimes -or ofienses 
that fall under the CIMT categoiy. If the applicant gives an afSrmative response to any of the 
questions involving CMC in Part 7 (Questions No. 8, 9, 12, and IS) or if the cases involves CIMTs, 
DAOs should rt&x the applicant to a secondary officer for a traditional interview fontul. 




This cheddist ii designed to provide a quick reference to the types of offenses which the Board of ImmignDon Appeals 
has found to be "Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude." This Ust is not exclusive and DAOs should consult with Service 
counsel for more m-depth information. 

Crimes Against The Person 

Murder/Intentional Homicide 

Voluntary Manslaughter 

Homicide by Reckless Conduct 

Involuntary Manslau^ta- w/ Reckless Disregaid 

Attempted Murder 

Kidnapping Mayhem 

Assault or Attempted Murder Upoa Govemmeat 

Canying a Concealed Weapoo w/ Intent to Use 

Against the Person of Another 
Assault w/ a Deadly Weapoo 
Assault w/ Weapon Likely to Produce Bodily Harm 
Interfering w/ a Law Enforwmcnt Officer w/ Use of 

Deadly Force 
Attempting to Obstruct/Impede the Progress of Justice 
Aggravated Assault Against a Peace Officer 

Crimes Against Property 


Attempted Arson 

B I ackmail/Extortion 


Uttering a Forged Instrument/Forged Prescriptiaa 

Making False Statements of Financial Omdifion 




Grand theft 

Petty Theft 

Receiving Stolen Property 

Concealing Assets in Bankruptcy — 

Encumbering Mortgaged Property w/ Intent to 

Fraudulently Issuing deck w/ InsufBdent Funds 
Frauduleatfy Issuing Worthless Check 
Illegal use of ATM or Credit Cwl 
Passing Forged Instrument 
Attempted Fraud 
Using Mails to Deftaud 

Mulring Fult^ '^ tntrmmt^ in /^ivjiiifjtynl rffVvrramt 

Securities Fraud 

Welfare Fraud 

Transporting Stolea Property 

Obtaining Money by False Pretenses 


Malicious Trespass 

Sexual and Family Crimes 

Assault w/ Intent to Commit Abortion 

Attempted Assault w/ Intent to Commit Carnal Abuse 

Statutory Rape/Rape 

Indecent Assault/Sexual Battery 





Gross Indecency 

Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor/Sexual 

Taking InrWrnt Liberties w/ a Child 
Incest _ . 

Oral Sexual Perversion 

Crimes Against the Government 

Falsely Issuing a Narcotic Prescriptioa 

Ofiiaing a Bribe 

Making, Passing, or Possessijog Countettfeit Coins 

Conspiracy to Violate IRS Laws 

Sessirities Fraud 


Smugging Merchandise 

Impersooating Federal Officer 

False Statements/Firearm 

False Stztemenls or Entries 

Harboring a Fugitive 

Using False Names & AjUiesaei to Violate Postal 

Uttering/Selling False/Counterfeit Immigratioa 

False Statements to Obtain a Passport 
False Statements in LPR Applicatko 

Theft firom U.S. Mail 
Taking Kickbacks 

Receiving Funds by False Statemeotss 
Trafficking in Naixotics 
Failing to Report Income 
UnioQ OfBdal UnkwfiiUy Accepting a Loan 
Kickbacks on Government Contracts 
False Statements/Selective Service 
Falsely Representing Social Security Number 
False Statements/UoEmployment Benefits 



Part n. Adjudication 

No. 3 

FD-2S8 Checka 

(A) Reduction in Wait-Time for FP-2S8 Checks. 

Under exis tinj; pfqc<^urea;_dismaj)ffic« wait 60 jiays for the FBI to return fingaprint- 
c heck (FD-258) re s ults. The FBI' s ourent proc«3ing time is in occcss of30 days. T he Serv ice is 
currently working with the FBI to reduce the fingerprint check tum-arounid time to leas than 30 days 
to enable fester processing of the N-400 applications by field ofiBces. In addition, we should all note 
that that processing times begin after receipt of the FD-2S8s fixsm submitting ofiSces, ofScea should 
makeevety effort to ensure these checks are timely initiated. 

To reduce the average time required for background checks, it is esseotial that FD-2S8 
submissions are properly prepared. To impnTve the qua lity and ime grity of the^ngaprints submitt^ 
by applicants for benefits, a designated fingerprinting service (DFS) ccrtificadon pro gim is beiiig 
implCTiaiteSoi^lfiee nablin g regulation is approved by_OMB. Training ofService personnel was 
completed last M and training of poTential DFSs is underway in LOS, MIA, NYC, SFR and CHL 
Ehgict ofiS cea are encouraged to inform potential provid e rs of finggptingngservicgjo obtain the 
necessary training as soon as possibl e. Upon p ublication of the DFS final r ule^ there wUl be a six- 
month transition period to phase out the unauthorized fingerprinting services.~ At fiill implementatio n 
of the DFS p rojg^^jhe Service will only accept fingerprints taken by authorized entitiu and 
i ndividuals . " ' 

As^a quality control in^gjie, beginning May 1996, the Service will establish theN^raska 
Service Cente r (NSC) as the coord inating centa; andcentral procwangfediityforall G^325A. and 
fingerprint resp onse. HQBENJusarranggd jor theFBI to forward all such responses. Including 
rejects, ill egible finger prims^jfl d "hits" d irectlyjoNSQ which will be responsible for receiving, 
monitoring an d distnbu tin g all ir^form ation related to these checks. The FBI will be notified of this 
procedural change. In addition, HQREC is assigning a responible collateral duty fingerprint 
specialist at each adjudicating office to receive information and serve as liaison. In order to ensure 
these procedures are e&ctive, we are incorporating a monitoring element into the Field Assessment 
Program being established by Intenol Audit Internal Audit will provide us w ith the ability to monitor 
and identify theoLuseo f late submissiona. and ensiife all FE>-2i)H c hedaare initiat^jmm^jgely 
upon receipt of the N-400 ^ 

(B) Implementation Guidelines 

1 . Agency check liaison duty 



As directed by HQREC, district ofiBces should designate a point of contact (POC) in each 
field office to serve as the liaison between the NSC and the adjudicator responsible for an application 
decision. The POC will recei ve instructions daily firom the NSC o f all agency "hits" and rejected 
fonTis (eithef t-U-258 or (J-325A). For hits, the instructions will provide notification that the relSS 
file will follow. For rejeaed forms, the instructions will notifyof the required hold and provide for 
foll ow-up action . .Rejected and non-classifiable fingerprints wi ll no lon ger b e returned to the 
a djudicating ofiSce for correction but instead will be handle d through the NSC. 

Directors are advised that the POCs responsibilities w ill include handling classified 
document s. 

2. Designated fingerprint services. 

Upon publication of INS No. 1666-94, Certification of Designated Fingerprinting Services, 
all offices adjudicating applications for benefits which require submission of Form FD-2S8 will have 
180 days in which to adjudicate applications for designation as "DFS". Critical to this ad^Idication 
is ensuring applicants are provided the opportunity to gain required training. 

Each office has a trained FD-258 trainer in place at this time. That person has been provided 
with training materials and contact telephone munben at region and headquarters for additional 
support and information. Regulations will specify that only INS or FBI trained_fii«firBrinten max_ 
prepare FD-258i An D^S or FBI trained fingaprinto' may train j)ther » at th e pFSjn.the procedure. 
In order to reduce the effect"orUnr&ainii igjreguirenigtt during the implementttpn period, trained 
fingerprmterTshould be actively communicating with potential DFS applicants and providing pre- 
training^ It should be emphasized that the training is voluntary and provided on a voluntary basis. 
Trained fingsprihters should" also inform pkitential DFS applicants that, while the training will meet 
the requirement of the regulation if ptiblished, it does not imply eligibility or guarantee approval for 
certification beyond the training requirement 



Part n. Adjudication 
No. 4 

Reduction in Wait-Time for A-file Requeata 

Under current procedures, an Adjudications OflScer waits for 6 months from the time the 
applicant's A-file was requested tocondurt an interview without the applicant's file. This procedure, 
however, unnecessarily delays the processing of naturalization applications and, for the majority of 
applicants, the entire record is not necessary in order to review the events of the last five or three 
years (residency requirement for naturalization). Many recent events or actions can be gleaned from 
records checks and applications review. 

As a result, this process is being changed to permit distrirt oflnces to wait only 30 days for a 
requested file before proceeding with the interview and adjudicating the applicant's N-400 based on 
a temporary file. On Febmary 21, 1996, the OflBce of Records sent a cable (HQRECIRPB 70144.2- 
C) to all fidd oflBces outlining the procedures to be followed for requesting and transferring A-filea, 
including procedures for files that cannot be requested through the Cemral Index System (CIS). 
These new procedures speed up the A-file transfer process and ultimately, the amount of time it takes 
to schedule an applicant for an interview. 

Fffifrive with this memorandum, an office is allowed to create a T-file after the A-file request 
has been pending for 30 days. Note, however, that there are a few exceptions to this policy. Fu^ 
a T-file should not be created or the case adjudicated without the file if the adjudicator has evidence 
that the applicant fi'audulentiy obtained permanent resident status. Second, this process should not 
be followed if; afler verifying in CIS, the A-file transfer subsystem code is "P", "D",''A'* or "F". In 
this scenario, you should not complete processing of the case, unless it is dearly deniable without first 
reviewing the A-file or after you have received verification fit)m the holding office that information 
contained in the A-file does not make the applicant ineligible for naturalization. (Please see the 
instructional wire referenced earlier for additional infoimatioa) Third, this policy should not be 
followed if other circumstances exist, as determined by the District Director, which would necessitate 
the review of the A-file prior to adjudication of the N-400. In most other situations, the interview 
can be conducted and a decision reached on the application with only the T-file' in the possession of 
the adjudicator. The A-file should be post-audited within 30 days. 

Offices should not wait until the interview is scheduled before requesting the A-files. The 
requests should be made at the time of receipt of the application either u part of the daily NACS FTR 
(file transfer request) process or directly through CIS. Cases which have been filed at the Service 
Centers through the Direct NM Program should have the NACS FTR or CIS FTR completed at the 
time of data entry. All other ofifices which are not receiving the applications thrtiugh the DIRECT 
MAIL program will need to initiate the A-file requests at their office 




Part EL Adjudication 

No. 5 

Testing Aoplicanta on Section 312 Requirement 

Testing naturalization applicants on United States history and government and the English 
language to fulfill the requirements of section 3 12 of the Act during the interview process is time- 
consuming. Alternative testing procedures will help both adjudicators and applicants. 

The Service plans to re-engineer and improve the policy and process of testing applicants by 
implementing a three pronged action plaa This plan will provide field ofiSces with needed guidance 
on establishing group testing of naturalization applicants. In addition, we will publish a proposed 
rule that will effectively govern the testing organizations. We arc also considering fiuther regulatory 
revisions that could expand the current number of testing organizations authorized to administer the 
citizenship test Finally, we are investigating alternative methods for applicants to demonstrate the 
requisite history and government requirements of section 312. ~ 

(A) Ahemative Method of Demonstrating Section 312 Knowledge . 

The Service is currently investigating whether to accept academic completion records of 
naturalization applicants who have attended school in the United States for at least two years and 
who subsequently graduated firom United States high schools, colleges, or universities as a possible 
means of satisfying the requirements of section 3 12. Almost all graduates of United States secondary 
schools, colleges or universrties must fiilfiU various requirements for course work in American history, 
government, and civics. Preliminary survey information compiled in 1994 indicated that almost all 
applicants holding degrees fiom American schools or colleges had no difficulty demonstrating English 
literacy or answering questions on histoiy and government The Service believes that applicants who 
fall in this group could possibty be accepted as having satisfied the section 312 requirements without 
compromising the intergiity of the naturalizatioa process. However, this is a major policy issue which 
must be fully researched and addressed by the Service before a decision can be made. 

(B) Group Testing. 

The Service has learned from the non-government testing organizations that group testing.of 
naturalization applicants in a group setting is an efficient, effective, and productive way for applicants 
to fiilfill section 3 12 req uix aitenta. Group testing, using a standardized muhiple choice test comprised 
of questions at various levels of difficulty, ensures that all applicants are trea t ed fiiiriy with regard to 
the questions that are asked. In additioa, without lessening the integrity of the testing process, group 
testing, when conducted as a pre-interview exercise, saves the govenimeot time by estab l i sh i ng an 
applicant's knowledge of English and history prior to the scheduling of valuable interview time. 
Policy guidelines highlighting the methods which have lead to the success of the group testing efibrts 
currently used by the Citizenship USA sites as well as the Baltimore District Office are provided 




While it has been the tradition of Service ofiBces to test applicants on questions of English 
literacy and United States history and government during the naturalization interview, several offices 
are now experimenting with the concept of group testing applicants prior to the start of the formal 
interview. This method of group testing should bring about three positive results. First, applicants 
will be put at ease in that they will not be asked history or government questions during the course 
of their interview. Second, district adjudications officers (DAOs) will have more time to address 
other issues needing clarification during the interview process. Third, it will increase our processing 
capacity by shortening the avenge duration of a naturalization interview. 

The Baltimore office has instituted a new policy of testing naturalization applicants at the time 
they file the N-400. Applicants are given a ten question, multiple-choice test District Inspectors (on 
detail) and DAOs rotate the responsibility of proctoring the actual multiple choice test, and ensure 
that no applicant waits over five minutes to be given a test, even if that means the applicant is tested 
individually. In addition, applicants who seem to have difficulty expressing themselves in English are 
tested on their ability to speak English. All applicants are evaluated on their ability to spealTEnglish, 
not simply those who demonstrate diflficulty during the N-400 pre-screening. All of these events 
happen prior to the scheduling of an interview, thus saving the office valuable interview time. 

The logistics of testing in larger offices are more challenging, but not impossible. The 
Chicago district has instituted a group testing procedure both in the district office and at certain 
community-based organizations, and Los Angeles is experimenting with alternative methods similar 
to those used by many state motor vehicle drivers license bureaus. 

R^ardless of whether an office is large or small, adopting the following two suggestions will 
aid the group testing process. Fust, this testing concept should be discussed with the local AILA and 
other attorney and community groups. Second, offices should seek the assistance of local voluntary 
agencies in order to disseminate information on group testing to the immigrant community. (While 
voluntary agencies should not be given the responsibility of proctoring Service 312 tests on behalf 
of the Service, they may be of assistance in arranging testing space if testing occurs outside of the 
district office) 

Offices also should be advised that we are developing a standardized written and oral test for 
use by all Service offices with applicants who have not used the services of private section 312 testing 
organizations. We are working to contract out the actual test development, and hope to have new 
procedures in place early in calendar year 1997. In addition, local offices needing updated lists of 
history and government questions or sample tests should contact the HQ Benefits Division 
Naturalization & Citizenship Services Branch at the telephone number listed below. 

Offices seeking more information on group testing should contact Richard Caterisano. ADDE, 
Baltimore on 410/962-21 18 or the Citizenship USA test sites of either Chicago or Los Angeles 
(Aphrodite Loutas in Chicago on 3 12/886-7549 and Don Neufdd in Los Angeles on 213/894-6004). 
Questions may also be directed to Peail Chang, Acting Chie^ Naturalization & Citizenship Services 





Branch or Craig Ho\vie, Adjudications Ofi5c«r on 202/S 14-5014. 

(C) Proposed Regulation for Outside Citizenship Testing Services. 

The Service is also in the process of finalizing a proposed rule which will completely 
restructure 8 CFR 312. This change of 8 CFR 3 12 constitutes a major policy decision on the part of 
the Service. The current Notice of Program does not impose rules or guidelines on the non- 
government testing organizations. In some instances, this has led to abuses by a few affiliated testing 
organizations. In an effort to cure this situation, the revised 8 CFR 3 12 will impose exacting 
performance, quality control, and revocation standards on these organizations. In addition, the 
Service is considering expanding the accessability of outside testing eotities through the use of 
additional testing centen. We antidpate publication of the proposed rule this spring, and 
implementation of the final rule in the late fall, 1996. 




PartIL Adjudicatioa 
No. 6 

Alternative Eiamination Methods 

Our current intoview scheduling pace needs to be recalibrated to take advantage of the time- 
saving strategies outlined in this paper. To that end, the Service is proceeding with the introduction 
of Alternative Examination Methods (A£M). The use of these methods is proposed to assist and 
speed up the naturalization process for variotu groups of naturalization applicants, without 
compromising the integrity of United States citizenship. 

While the Service has traditionally used a generic, one-size fits all type of naturalization 
interview, some ofiSces have experimented with their own creative methods to handle the ever- 
increasing numbers of applications. These offices have enthusiastically reported that use'of these 
alternatives has resulted in a more streamlined naturalization process. A combination of pre-screening 
methods, group testing, primary and secondary interviewing, and off-site interviewing makes for a 
more efficient interview process. 

For example, the Chicago office pre-screens N-400 cases in conjunction with not-for-profit, 
local community organizations. These organizations, in coordination with INS, provides off-site 
areas on a weekly basb where residents can complete the N-400 packet. They ensure that the packets 
are propcriy completed prior to filing the applications in bulk (approximately 300 each time) with 
the Service. Problem cases are resolved prior to filing with the Service either by telephone or 
referring the applicant to an attorney. Off-site interviews are scheduled and processed by the Service. 
Such pre-screening and off-site interviewing allows for a much faster N-400 interview. 

Another method that some offices have employed for more efficient interviewing is a primary- 
secondary arrangement The primary-secondary arrangement allows offices to 'fiut-track* certain 
applicants, such as those who have already satisfied the section 3 12 requirements through prior 
testing by the Service (e.g.. legalization applicants) or an outside testing entity, or who are exempt 
from the section 3 12 requirements based on age or disability. Routine interviews can'be handled by 
less experienced officers, designated as primary interviewing officers. For cases which require an 
L'v-depth Q&A or invoKe potential fiaud, the applicants can be referred to secondary for a traditional 
interview with more experienced or Senior Adjudications officers. 

The Los Angeles office is currently utilizing the primary-secondary anangement The N-400 
applicants are tested for English and civics prior to the primary interview. Those applicants who pass 
the English and civics exams are referred to a primary officer. Less experienced officen are 
designated u primary officers and more experienced officers are designated u secondary officers. 
The Los Angdes office has found that approximately 10% of their cases are referred frcm primary 
to seoondaiy. The secondary officers also conduct primary interviews when they have no secondary 




interviews. Los Angeles has found that the primary interviews are currently taking about 8 minutes 
but may be shortened to around 5 minutes as the temporary employees who are serving as primary 
ofiBcers gain experience. 

The Form N-400 Supplement A (see attachment) has been developed to aid in the pre- 
screening process. As mentioned previously in this memo, the OflBce of General Counsel is ' 
researching whether to accept academic completion records as a possible means of satisfying the 
requirements ofsection 3 12. If there is a &vorable determination, the supplement may be used to 
identify the appropriate applicants and must be included with each N-400 distributed by those ofBces 
that opt for AEM. The supplement instructs the applicant to attach a copy of his or her diploma or 
degree. The N-400 Supplement A has been designed as a companion to the N-400 until that fonn 
is revised. 

District directors of offices processing applications for naturalization are authorized to 
implement AEM immediately. For more efficient utilization of Service resources, district directors 
are urged to adopt AEM and to increase the number of scheduled interviews. This use of AEM and 
streamlining of the naturalization process will aid the districts in meeting their FY96 production goals. 




and Natun*iiiaL.^ii Sci-vtce 

•— vutjiitation 
Supplement A. 


s complete liil jupplement ami 6Je it with your ipplkauoo CPorwi N-tM) u> help ui better process your roquot. If yoo li»ve tisaiy &ied 
ipplidtioii. yvu miy cooiplete atid submit iliu supplement to the Office where y^ur applicatioa is penditi^ 

1 lie submiiiiat tliis supplement vith your tppUaiioo, sifs your aame in ink on the side o( yotir photognphs, but DO NOT write over your 
Si^a your lume u shown on your (reea card unless you ire leeJtin^ u dunge your name, ia which case please si{n your full »«•— as you 
ited it in question 7. 

c Report Burden for this supplement is estimated to ivenge 10 minutes per response. (Set Form N-4C0 for mart information on npcrdnt 

;upplement Is coosidered part of your appUcatioa foe aaturaliiatiea. All the lafocvatiMi pravided most be trae sad carrect. 
r B. ADDmONAL INFORMATION AJBOITT YOU. (Tlu appliemi for naxuraiaadon.) 


Fua Name 


sue Phone* 

( ) 

Aliea RipOzttioa # 

Date d Birth 

Date xou became a penoanent 
readent fVomVtwyy^) 

Did 70U gradtute £rom an accredited college in the U.S.7 
a Yes a No 

B. Did joa gradtuce Eram college outside (he U£.? 
a Yes a No 

U Ya 10 either queoio«,clKxt the lli^l>eale»do<coUd«•de^oeJ»«Jeo«i^«d^ f,^(Tir* t nyy rfjmr MfVir i«rTt M ffA'nyptinujcJ 

□ Asoeiale-l Q a«cJitlot1 Q Masur-i O Ooannlc 

Id ^u gradtiate from high school in the U.S.7 
1 Yes a No 

•1{ Yea , baw aia^ yean o< U(k aekool £d ;»• anead U dM {3S.1 
a Lea Ihaa I Q One Q T«ra Q Tluee Q Four or me 

Name of School 

Location (City, Suu) 

(AJLach a eapj of jov hifH aOtcci difiams U this Ji ^ ' y fcwie n/ or oo^ipiat |A< foOotm^.} 

Year Graduated 

4. Hire jQa completol in INS approved Adalt Edacation 
Course? Q Yo a No 
(U Yea , attack a eop; ol the ecnUkato ol eo«p4cclo«.) 

ave 70a alrtadj passed an INS approved dtizeoship teaT 

I Yes a No 

! Yes , attach a copy ol (he text resblo.) 

Ithia (he past S jeaa have 70U been required to pay child support through a separation agreement, divorce decree or other 
.urt order? Q Yes Q No offt.Mpu^ 

' At any time during the past i yean vera jroa OMn than 2 weelu behind in these paymeatsT ^ Yes Q No 
• Are you currently more than 2 weeks >-'''~'^ Q Yes a No 

acunlization iiiTOlTes a formal caemony. This oeremonjr can be conducted by INS or by certain cotuts. In many parts of the 
iintiy both INS and the ootuts conduct rmtiinniit, Hoirercr, you tnay request (bat you only be nattiralized in a coart 

remony. This would mean yoa wotild not be scheduled for an IKS ceremony eien if one were arailable. 
Wotild you like to be schedtiled only for a court ceremony? Q Yes Q I have do preference 

)ur name as shown on yotir greea card will normally be used when you luturalize. However, if you have chaitged your name 
rough divorce or marriage since recerrin^ your last green card, we vrill update our records atid issue yotir certificate in your 
neat name. Any applicant also has the option of requesting a ehan^ of (tame when tuttualizing; however. If jou do request 
ome ch a ng e, we vrill schedule you for a court ceremony since only the cotut can grant a change of name. 

Do you want to change your name as a result of your raaniage or divorce? q y^ Q No 

(U Yea, attack a copy o< the mantaca or divm dacroL) 

Do JOU Otherwise want to change yotir name irhea you nattxrmlixe? q Yes Q No 

1/ y«« want to as« a naiae other than the OM en your curreat green card, clearly write it below: 

NCddle Name 



Part nL Processing 
No. 1 

Natunili2«rion Ceitificatea in Sundard Size 

Currently, the Service has expedenced delays in the process of printing naturalization 
certificates because the size of the paper used is not staiulard. HQBEN is currently in the process of 
negotiating with the Bureau of Printing and Engraving to order standard size {i'/i' x 11") 
naturalization certificates which will be used in standard laser printers. The Bureau of Printing and 
Engraving has indicated that it will take approximately three (3) months to make the chat\ge. 
HQBEN has requested that the printing of these certificates be made a priority. We are also exploring 
the possibility of issuing card size naturalization certificates through the new Integrated Card 
Production System (ICPS) at the Service Centers. A production timetable has not been established 
for this project yet. 

In addition, capability to batdi print Naturalization Certificates in NACS has been developed 
and implemented at the El Monte she in the Los Angeles District OfiBce. Batch printing can save 
considerable time in certificate production and will be made available to other Citizenship USA sites 
in May, 1996. 




PartllL Processing 

No. 2 

Logging Alien Registration Cirds at the Oath Ceremony 

Staff are required to collect and log green cards (Form I-551/I-151) at ceremonies and 
subsequently destroy them or send them to the ICF for destruction. The logging requiremem is time 
consuming. Effective immediately, during naturalization ceremonies, ofiBcers in attendance will no 
longer log each individual Alien Registration Card (AR card) on the duplicate ceremony list As 
Form I- 1 S 1 is obsolete, these cards are to be destroyed along with Reentry Permits and Refugee 
Travel Documents upon surrender without a notation opposite the person's name on the ceremony 
list. In accordance with part 21 17. 14 of the Administrative Manual, the duplicate list will continue 
to be endorsed as follows: "All AR cards , (except 1-55 Is), reentry permits and refugee travel 
documents surrendered have been mutilated and delivered for destrucdon of record matenal" 

When collecting AR cards, District OfiBces may use volunteers or contract employees under 
INS supervisions to collect surrendered 1-55 Is. A comer should be clipped from the Forms I-S5 1 
surrendered. District ofBces must note on the oath nunifest whether a naturalizing citizen turned in 
his or her Alien Registration Card or an attestation for lost or stolen cards. The clipped 1-55 Is will 
be forwarded to the Immigration Card Facility with a copy of the ceremony list The Immigration 
Card Facility will be responsible for the destruction and notation of surrendered I-S5ls on the 
duplicate list. 

Officers conducting naturalization interviews and/or officers in attendance at naturalization 
ceremonies will not require applicants to complete affidavits for a lost or stolen card. Instead, an 
anestation form may be given to the applicants either at the interview or the check-in time for the 
oath ceremony. In the event a card is surrendered subsequent to the ceremony, 1-15 Is are to be 
destroyed, 1-55 Is are to be clipped and forwarded to the ICF. 




PartllL Processing 
No. 3 

AfTidavia or Attestation of Lost or Stolen AJien Registrmtion Cards 

AfBdavits of lost or stolen Alien Registration Cards will no longer be prepared either at the 
naturalization interview or at the ceremony for those individuals who do not produce the cards. 
Attestations will be required. Below is a sample Attestation of Lost Alien Registration Card that 
should be used for those applicants who have lost their ARC prior to the naturalization ceremony. 
This form can be provided to the applicant either prior to the ceremony by attaching it to form N-445, 
Notice of Oath Ceremony at the time of mailing, or when the applicant appears for the oath 
ceremony. HQBEN POC: Sue Arroyo, Senior Adjudication Officer at (202) 5 14-8247. 


I state under penalty of perjury that I have lost my alien registration 

receipt card (the Green Card)on or about under the following 


I understand that it is against the regulation of the United States Govenunent (8 CFR 338.3) to 
possess both an alien registration receipt card and a Certificate of NaturalizadotL I also understand 
that should I find my alien regjstntioa receipt card, I must immediately sunender it tathe nearest 
Immigration Office. 

Signature Date A Number 




Part HL Proceuing 
No. 4 

Unsigned PhotognJDhi «nd HindinT O ut NatundiMtion Certincate 

District ofBces are reminded that regulations do not preclude the issuance of the 
Naturalization certificate prior to the oath of all^iance during Naturalization ceremonies. Issuing 
certificates at the end of a large ceremony adds time to the overall duration of a large ceremony. 
Eliminating this step may allow districts to have more than one ceremony in a single day. While 
small ofiBces which have small infiequent ceremonies may want to continue to issue the certificates 
at the conclusion of the ceremony, large ofiBces may wish to issue the certificates at check-in. 

In the event naturalization certificates are issued at the preliminary check-in, precautions 
should be taken to ensure that no one leaves with his or her certificate prior to taking the oath of 
allegiance since naturalization candidates do not become citizens without taking the required oath. 
Exits will have to be monitored and participants will have to be reminded that they cannot leave with 
the certificate until they have taken the oath. 

Whether the certificates are handed out prior to or after the cerentony, instructions for proper 
signature must accompany the unsigned certificates, explaining that the certificate must be signed by 
the naturalizing citizen and that the certificate will not be considered valid until properly signed. 
Instructions for proper signature on the certificate should be provided to the naturalizing candidates 
when they check-in for the ceremony. (See attachment 4) Handing out certificates with clear 
signature instructions will place the reqwnsibility for signing the certificate on the naturalizing citizen 
and make the interview and ceremony processes more efficient 

Furthermore, much time is currently being spent during naturalization interviews to ensure 
proper signing of the photographs. Distiia offices should devise ways to get the photographs signed 
prior to the interview. 




Part HL Proceuing 
No. 4 


Your naturalization certificate is not valid until you sign it You must sign your certificate, ii. cursive, 
and the signature must match your name as it is primed on the certificate. Do not use initials. 

Sign your name on your naturalization certificate in the following manner 


Sample signature 


Su ceiiificado de naturalizaddn no es valido hasta que usted lo haya firmado. Usted debe firmar su 
certificado, y su firma debe ser igual al nombre que esta impreso en el certificado. No debe usar 


Fiime su nombre en eL certificado naturalizaddn de la siguiente manen: 


Ejempto de la Firma 




Part DDL Processing 

No. 5 


During October 1995, a woridng group consisring of personnel from EDS, HQIRM, HQBEN ' 
was formed to review and correct outstanding problems related to the current version of NACS 
(Naturalization Automated Case System). The list of 44 outstanding ticket "hot-line" itenu were 
reviewed line by line to defect problems and determine a viable solution. All problems were 
categorized into the following: training/personnel problems, easy to fix problems and long-range 
correctable problenu. Most problems have been corrected as a result of this woridng group. 

Additionally, in November 1995, a telephone survey was conducted by HQBEN with each 
NACS ofBce to see what problems still persisted. Training issues were defined and to date, several 
ofBces either have been or are scheduled to be trained or retrained on the current system. 

At the same time, INS is developing a new LAN-based cotnputer system to replace NACS. 
A pilot is set to begin in September, 1996 between the Nebraska Service Center and the Chicago 
District Office. After the new system has been tested, it will be implemented incrementally 
nationwide beginning January 1997. 

It is imperative for every ofSce that has NACS to use it for data integrity and to key in such 
data in a timely manner. When offices Gul to timely enter data into the system, or fiul to close out 
cases after oath taking ceremonies, analyses are skewed and re-programming eSbrts are impeded. 
Failure to close out cases puts additional strain on an already overtjurdened system. When cases are 
closed in NACS, information is capturedby the Central Index System (CIS) regarding the applicants' 
naturalization. By not closing cases out in a timely manner, other operating units outside of 
Adjudications are affected because we cannot provide them with accurate infonnation about the 
applicant's immigration status. 




Part rV. Oath Ceremonies 
No. I 

Partnership's with Community Groups 

Effective partnerships with community-based, voluntary and immigration lawyers 
organizations must be expanded and accelerated immediately to help the Service meet its goal of 
naturalizing 1.3 million new citizens in Fiscal Year 1996. 

During the last two quarters, field offices must step up their efforts to actively organize local 
groups to perform non-security tasks supporting the naturalization process, particularly those 
intended to &cilitate oath ceremonies and support activities outlined in this paper. 

District Directors and OfiBcers-in-Charge who are not already doing so are encouraged to 
b^in meeting regularly with community entities to encourage them to join the Service as full partners 
in enhancing awareness of naturalization and citizenship. These meetings will enable field offices to 
detennine the assistance that the organizations can render to support our Citizenship USA initiative. 

Although local groups should be urged to participate in the partnership on a voluntary basis 
while performing routine activities for ordinary events, field offices have the authority to enter into 
small purchase order contracts with these organizations for certain services related to special 
occasions, such as extraordinary oath ceremonies commemorating special events or when large 
numbers of applicants will be sworn in. 

The partnet^p tasks to be performed by the community groups may consist of the following: 

• Under supervision of Service officers, provide assi stance at the field offices to 
facilitate interviews as well as schedule and implement oath ceremonies. 

• Under superviskn of Service officers, distribute pre-approved forms and instructions 
to the public at field offices, or be designated' bythe field offices to distribute the 
forms attd instructions at comnnmity sites. 

• Under supervision of Service officers, provide the following oath ceremony 

• Identify and obtain suitable sites for ceremonies. 

• Set up fiualities for ceremonies. 

• Coordinate program activities for ceremonies (guest speakers, appropriate 




entotainment, printing and distributing programs, seating and closing details.) 

• Assist at actual ceremonies: screening N-445s for completeness, accepting 

alien registration cards, distributing naturalization certificates, other clerical 

To facilitate field office efforts to involve the community organizations in the naturalization 
process. Headquarters and Regional Customer Service Outreach staflf have been assigned to assist 
the field on as needed basis. Field ofSces seeking Customer Service assistance are advised to call the 
Headquarters Branch Chief at 202/307-3587. 


41-503 97-8 



Part rv. Oath Ceremoaies 
No. 2 

Oath Ceremoniea 

(A) Guidelines for Administrative Oath Ceremonies 

To meet the demand of record numbers of persons applying for naturalization, the Service is 
adopting a more innovative approach to the administration of oath ceremonies. The large but 
infrequent ceremonies that we have traditiorially held, though dignified and having served the public 
well in the past, can no longer meet the public demand. Many times naturalization applicants wait 
for several months after their cases have been granted to participate in these large ceremonies. In 
addition, because large ceremonies typically require an enonnous amount of preparation, field offices 
often have to shut down their normal examinations fiinctions around ceremony time just to get ready. 
District offices are now given the opdon of varying the size of ceremonies and having fi-equent oath 
ceremonies on a more efficient scale to suit local circumstances. Depending on available resources, 
space, and backdog of applicants waiting or an oath ceremony, offices are now encouraged tS condua 
same-day ceremonies or frequent ceremonies to meet their production goals. Frequent ceremonies 
on a smaller scale may be adopted where district offices determine that they may enhance efficiency 
and improve customer service. Field offices are, however, required to maintain the dignity of the 
ceremony even in smaller ceremonies. When conducting administrative oath ceremonies, offices 
must follow these guidelines: 

• A dignified oath ceremony should have appropriate space, prepared speeches, keynote 
speakers, and/or representatives from local media for coverage of the ceremony. 
While these &ctor3 should be present at any ceremony, offices may choose to add 
elements to the ceremonies which are unique to the local community, 

• Ceremonies can be held both on-site, at an INS fiuility, or off-site, at a designated 
area. Various community groups and businesses may agree with INS to sponsor and 
provide off-site spaces for such ceremonies. Spaces should be dean and free torn 
outside noise and distractions. Recorded or live music appropriate for the occasion, 
such as the national anthem, may be used. Flags of the United States and the INS 
should be prominently displayed; 

• Speeches should be planned in advance and may be ddivered by the district director, 
deputy district director, officer-in-charge or persons acting in their behalf fi^m the 
local district office. (A sample speech is iivduded for reference purpose.) Keynote 
speakers may be invited to attend the ceremony and address the new group of 
citizens. Sp^kers imm local government agencies, civic groups, local colleges and 
universities and other organizations can fimction as keynote speakers; 

• To add to the formality of the event, district offices can arrange to have the flags 
earned into the ceremony space by uniformed guards, Infijimation OfiScers, uniformed 




youth groups, ROTC units, as well as boy or girl scout color guards; and 

Where feasible, ofiBces should contact local media groups for coverage of the 

(B) Thefcle of Corporate Sponsorship of Ceremonies 

^.v*^^^— «v Due to increasing 6scal restraints on district offices, it is necessary to seek alternative and 
4>-T^ /oieapo- ways of perfonning naturalization ceremonies. One way of addressing the lack of financial 
N«oQfces is for field offices to seek out local businesses to sponsor the ceremonies. The ceremonies 
should be tastefiil and maintain the dignity of the occasion. Off-site bdlities, provided by local 
businesses, can serve as appropriate ceremonial rooms. Although a business may choose to donate 
items such as food and drinks as part of the sponsorship of the ceremony, logos and other items 
identiiying the sponsoring business should not be the theme of the ceremony. Rather thanTocusing 
on the products or services a company produces, some corporate sponsors have chosen to stress the 
importance of the work of immigrants to their companies' success and more importandy, the role 
immigrant labor has played in the United States. While corporate sponsorship may be sought for 
naturalization ceremonies; the sponsorship of the event should focus on the importance of conveying 

For additional guidelines, please refer to attachment 3 for a list of oath ceremony "best 
practices" used in other offices. 

(C) Same-Day Naturalization Ceremonies 

Where INS has the authority to conduct administrative ceremoniesi, field offices are 
encouraged to conduct expedited, small naturalization ceremonies at the option of applicants for 
naturalization. Based upon reports firom field offices, this process can also be successfully 
implemented for judicial ceremonies. While coordinating same-day ceremonies for administrative 
naturalization ceremonies will involve no coordination with other agencies, judicial naturalization 
cerenranies will require additiotol prepantion by field officers to plan the cerentonies in coordination 
with the courts. 

Field offices are encouraged to develop work schedules to ftdlifiti^ same-day ceremonies. 
Interviews may be conducted during one part of the day, such as the monung, and the ceremony 
conducted later that same day. In addition, offices can provide applicants with a notice, offering them 
the option to be naturalized the same day of the interview, upon approval of the application, or to be 
scheduled for an oath ceremony at a later time when they can bring fiunily members and guests. 
Accommodations should be set aside to allow for an expedited ceremony. 





(D) Expedited administration of oath of allegiance. 

A district ofSce niay administer the oath ■without a ceremony when an applicant requests such 
due to emergent or other compelling circumstances as prescribed in 8 CFR 337.3. 




Part rV. Oath Ceremonies 

No. 2 


Oath Ceremony Speech 

Welcome to you alL It is an honor and a privilege to welcome you as citizens of the United 
States. By your oath of allegiance to the United States, you no longer have political ties with your 
former country of citizenship. Your allegiance is now exclusively to the United States. In return for 
the benefits you are given within this great land, we are entitled to your solemn word that you will 
support our Constitution and taws and defend us against our enemies if that need should arise. Of 
course, this does not mean you should forget your native land, your fiienda, or femily members 

This nation has grown and flourished through the preservation of cultural traditions such as 
the music, dress and food of your homelands. Your heritage is part of your contribution to this great 
country. This nation is composed of the strengths of many nations and cultures. Each contributes 
the special skills and knowledge that has been acquired through the centuries. Each of you brings a 
special talent, a talent which, throu^ hard work and dedication, will not only strengthen this nation 
but provide you with success and achieyemenL 

Our Constitution provides you with the opportunity to pursue your aspirations on an equal 
basis with all other Americans. This country promises you equality of opportunity, but it can not 
promise you wealth or wisdom. It promises you the pursuit of happiness, but it can not promise 
happiness. It promise you liberty but it cannot guarantee peace, only the opportunity to work with 
us to secure that peace. We, as a people, have made mistakes in the past and we will undoubtedly 
make errors in the fijture. But through good times and bad, this is a country of law. Our constitution 
is a splendid document which continues to provide protection of property, liberty, life, social justice 
and personal freedom for every individual more than any other society in recorded history. 

In short, you are now among us to share in our successes and our bilures in good times as 
well as bad times. You are joining the great fiunily of citizens et^oying the cherished principles of 
freedom. Being convinced that you will make good citizens, we your fellow citizens by biith and by 
choice, enthusiastically welcome you as citizens of the United States of America. 



Memorandum 5 

BQCOU revised dtis mtmonndxim for diHcnmiatioB on Jimc 27, 1996. 


Appiopdatioas Law. 

Agency Use of Clerical Volumeeis 


June 27. 1996 

(otiginal dated 

Juae25. 1996) 


William S. Slaaay ^"^QCOU 

Office of Field OpezanoBS Govenunem Law 


Anermnr- Antirea Qparantillft 

TS«rrTF. PRT-SKN ii.'n 

Caa the INS ose volumess to pctfonn coaia services v/hea tfa£ (1) the 
vohiiilii ri woold pexfinm clerical tasks; (2) the parties agree in advance that the INS will 
not compensate die volonieexs; and (3) the pardes memorialize diis agreement in whtinc^ 



No. While the use of volunteers wbo agree in advmce not to receive paymeni 
does not violate the Aiai-De£ciency Act, it genenlly ■n ii '- i i r "^''^ an unautfaoriZBd 
augmentation of the agency appropriitfirin Wlicrc, as here, the volmuceis would pedbon 
dunes noirnaUy pecftjnned by agency employees, it is impennissible. Theieihie, the 
Agency cannot use these vohmtees to peifstm these clerical dudes. 


We reviewed a proposal &om a district ofBce concerning the use of volunteers. In 
short, the district asked if it could use volunteers to perform clerical dudes related ts their 
natnralTTarifln efforts. We ofiia the following analysis. 

A. Tbe INS Caimot Use Votonteen When the Volunteers Perform Duties That 
Other Agency Penonael NonnjJIy Perform. 

Generally, & govemment ageitcy itiay not operate at a capacity greater than the 
icwi tVijtynwgriiCT MtrA^nrvrr-t 70 Comp. Gcs. 597 (1991). Ttiis means that an agcncy 
may not accept goods or servicea to aagjnent the penonncl or fiods that Congress has 


alxeady provided il' l±,tt598. Forexansple.inI9r7WL 101336 (C.G.). an agency 
jf^f..ij*»»4 to use vo luntem to ^)el f olm duties that other agency r^''««in''^ itonnally 
patcranti} IiLit3. Tlu ComptroUer G«iusal held that this was aa iaptoper 
augmestanon beousa. tader this proposed anaogemeat, the agency could ise 
compensated employees vcfaose work iiiaetioiis the voltuoeets were going to pc rfon n to 
fill additional dunes. Id. 

In 70 Comp. Go. 597 (1991), on the other hand, ^ lotezstate Commoce 
Commission ("ICCr) a ccep t e d the fiee installanon of cornp\iti!T equipment from vnious 
piivzu c ai i i ers. The earners installed the equipment in order to assist the ICC in its 
taiiff-aomtonng duties. IiL at 598. Because the ICC had specific statutory audiodty to 
est&blish the rnxrmrr in wticfa private canieTS filed tarffi, dse Comptroller Genenl found 
the icceptisce of tha voluoBDry services and equipment proper. IsL. However, the 
decision also notes that if die ICC used the equipment for any other puipose, the 
acceptance of these services would became an unsnthorized augmeotaiion.' IsL at 600. 

Following the same analysis, the IKS cannot use the vohsaeers to peifotm cledcal 
i-»«ir. where, as in 19f7 WL 101336, agency ooployees are already responsible fer 
pedbimiikg diese tasks. Sss 1987 WL at 3. Furthermore, the proposed use of volunteeo 
here is distingui^iable from 70 Comp. Gen. 597 m thai the IKS, unlike the ICC, does not 
have the statutory authonty to dedde how the Agency can meet its clerical f^nnlltv^1 See 
70 Comp. Gen. at 598. Thus, the Agency's use of volunteers is an unauthorized 
augmenutioa ' 

B. If The Use Of Tlie Vohmtccrs Is Not As Improp<^r AngmeatxtiaB, Ike INS Caa 
Accept The Voluntary Setvicts Because Serriec Provided By Votonteers Who Ag;rcc 
In Writing Not To Se«k Compessation b A Gramity. 

Under the Anti-Defideney Act C^ci^Oi a government agency cannot accept 
vohmtaiy services unless aparty tcndeis services in an emerg e ncy siiuxdon. 31 U.S.C 
§ 1342(1994). Congress enacted this prohibition because it did not wast paroes to 
voltxaiea services to the Government, then presoit bills that eotild morally obligate 
'^"ngfff ^f^ ■■i^iinMiir*jw. rfigni 1982 WL 27133 (C.G.). However, as an exception to this 
gensai bar, the CampttoIIerGeneial has held that an agency may accept vohmtaiy - 
services if (1) prior to the tendering of services, each volunteer agrees that the 


' Unda earlitr deasienal law, ite Cem^mlkr Caooal cvahuttd Ih* CovonaMofs osc of vehauaiy 

servicaQD]yiinder31U.S.C.| \MX dijouMil mja, lad wbaiitr it ceold ttapt gocds arfg it« 

-wpBeosmoa'satuas. 31 U.S.CJ 3302(b) and 31 U.S.C.{UOl. &fcax.B-1337S(NevaBbcr20. 

1940). RowevCT.ihcceatBpaiBydcdsoBtabngaistkisdistioetMattdiMWiaalyUlhaletllltyBf 

votoaiymvif anderbotti 111* togiHTiminetfuattimd 31 U.S.C 11342. ScaB'31 1079.2 (teaay 2, 

1 9S7); Sa llsa 70 Cea^ Co. S97 ( 1 991). 

' 'ntvahiBiMSwccefflaBfaasofatatt'Si>oridvt''prop«B. l9t7WL10I336(CC.)it2. Tlw 

<lBniTeftd»dBottp«d^»tattht»editti«iiarhrffd Sfieid.u3. 

' ThaCoRipooBirGaaalfaibcr advised ihK the ICC iapl»n<aieSe«pfBeedBna that weoJdpccvtitt 

(h« an of Ml »>p«r"'il ' ** * "" * I f "'"T'"t vd ether uuuJiuiiml popeats. 70 Caap. Gob. at 600. 



Govtmmeoi wiU not campcasue her, aad (2) the parties sufBdmtly documesi this 
agitaaeiit. Id. The Comptroller Gemn] has detcnnioed that tiie An does not apply in 
these situstions siacs the agzeemcst and tvidence cheieof pieclnde the possibility that a 
volunieer could subaat a lepfmate eiaiffl to Congress for payment after she had already 
provided services. SttisL 

For example, like here, as oTpsization of ictir e d persons sought to preseoi 
leoures and distribute pamphlets for the Department of the Anny on a vohmtary basis. 
1982 WL 27133 (C.OA In exchange, the Anny only provided die volumeers with access 
to Army iostallaiions. UL at 2. The Comptroller General found that this did not violate 
the Azx because, unlike volunteers who of&dously provided services, each volunteer 
agreed in advance and in vviiting that they would perform &ee of charge. Id. at 2. The 
ooiat infiared that this distincdon jtmifirri the exception because the evidence of a 
wTTtien agteemem ensured chat the Government would not have to compensate thfi 
volunteers ai azry time. Id. The majoiity of administrative drrisiona which hold that the 
Act did not ber the use of volunteers also adhere to this rationale. See, eg. B-H2087- 
Oi>l (November 26, 1975) (Commission on Federal Papowodc could accept vohmtary 
services as long the individnals agreed in advance ihat the services were &ee); S& *^*^ B- 
13378 (NovenAer 20, 1940) (Commerce Department could accept private agency's offer 
to analyze data because die parties' agteemem specified that the services were &ee). 
Applying this standard, the INS would not violate the Act by accepting the clerical 
services offered by vohmteeK. Sa 1982 WL 27133 (C.G.). This is because, like the 
Aimy and the volumeers in 19S2WL 27133, the parties here can evidence their / 
undersmnding that the volsnteers will not receive any monetary compensstion in a ogn^ 
writing. See jd. 3t2- 


In the absence of specific samtory authority, the Agency cannot use volumeen to 
perfotm functions that other agency personnel normally pafbim because this use wotild 
violate the laws again<» the unauthorized augmentation of an agency's appropriaiions. 
While the Agency wt}uld not necessarily violate the Anti-Deficiency Act for its tise of 

' AlltoochevIicradDBiSBiih^dtcsioBjdiuQStdihccscsidentsQa that in agtaey provided 
vohiTTtrf rt, the modan cuts ne loagtr eeasidg thif i reley«at iaae. 20U ££- 7 Comp. Geo. 110 (l$2() 
CScrviccs readocd [free ef paynest] pursuact to a fotaial eoMna tn not 'vehsuiry' withia 1h< moaiBi 

' Also, tilx lit* volomyagiveaeMi tfasibeCoaptroUerGnenlbwixe^ud Gram ihtAo, tad 
agrceinait should stpUe^ toot dm the aroca previdtd by the cletics «t jiamiDis. StC 19Q WL 
27133 (CG.); SsBalsaB-U37t. In addition, wfailt th« "{ood work a^tricBce* thaiihelNS wiQ previd* 
vofansecn may btinvihabU, die ecp«isiuziaeif probably doe» not ecastjate tiiffirtmr legal 
coosidentioa. rntnyy e \9ti WL 271^1 Howcnr, tlus eeaiidemoa iss* is imievsit IS tb* analysis 
uodo- tha Act b^nrwa, 1&« hsc other acoaes have only pruvi d ed is vohuuess with aeees to ihdr 
ofBocs; dspiB dko. Sm CoisptreUer Caoal ttiH casehided ihji the Aa did tMt proseribc dM 
GevsnacR'* sae ef vokmaaa. Ss H, CAoiy only prsvidcd voluatna widi amtt to is ofBoa); SfiB 
lla B-1 3371 (Ceastterc* D^artmes ianithed i;ucc aad equipaest for vehnleen who ofliad ID 
aaalyie data wTthoot eanpcDsadoD). 



volunteen, ibe proposJ of xlie District Office twouU cause an iTT n i n n ot ■ugmentsiion, 
and, tfaerefoic ii b prohibitEd. 


If you h«ve«ay questions, please eaU John BtaagUa (202-514-9701) or mc (202-514- 

Associaie General G>ansel 



HQOPS 10/19 


Appropmnou Law: 

Agency Use of Qericil Vohintffrt 



To Regional Direaon 

Fwa Office of Fidd 

Attached is a m*ii mi» w/<<'Tn from the Office of the Geoera) Couiuel outlzniag their legal opbuoa 
reganting the Service's uie of clerical vohiaeen. - 

This opinion is the result of recent questioas regarding the propiietj of ussg vohnseers to 
perform non-sensitive clerical fimaifins. 

The Office of Geoeal Coimsd in its opinion indicates this praoice would be improper. Intfae 
Tigtff of this determination, pleue ensure that this legal n pj iiinn jj distributed to >«'^' office tiader 
your jurisdiction wiA instruoiocs to review office opemioQS and ensure compliance. ,' 

Actij^Assoaate Commissioner 
Held Opetanons 



Office of the Deputy Attorney General 
U. S. Departmect of Justice 

WaduxtlCK. DC 20S3O 

q] pa^^S (£) 



AG GETBACKS -- JUNE 7. 1995 

Letter f roiw- Dicinne Jacob (attached), AG requested expedited 
rogpono a — (3 liays j 

AG is interested in what INS is doing to use volunteers and 
volunteered goods with naturalization. Are we exploring all 
opportunities? She asked as an example: if someone wanted 
to donate a computer system, could they? 

I received a copy of the attached draft paper on infectious 
diseases that I believe OES at State is coordinating. CISET 
is the Committee on International Science, Engineering and 
Technology. I haven't read all of it yet, but thought your 
TB working group might find it helpful or at least 

Letter from Congressman Menendez (attached) about Esmor 
detention center. Seth requests a response this week. Caji 
I see a copy of the draft response before it goes to OLA. 
Thanks . 

Letter to Clinton from Joule Kadadu, A 37 682 962 (attached, 
parts not readable) . Can someone look up his Alien number 
and let me know where he is in the process, so I can draft a 
response . 

The monthly INS statistical report: Seth euid the DAG had a 
few questions, which Seth wants to discuss at the next ISS^ 
wee)cly. (attached) . However, if you give me answers before 
then, I'll see if that's enough. / '^ 



Acny* cmxMnsMir camtaigh 


PAUODu, CAur. tnu 



Mr. LaooftacOi 



1600 Ptnttfytvuia «v«.. N. W. 

Dear Mr. Ptnua. 

Fini l«t BW itmek yr " '" r^'t **»> *» UFJMdm rflb« ACC \ut FiMiy. ftb^ Mrt. 
lilioOMfltyoMtof yoBrctfarinAmoMrpropBaUlftWWHMiaMMfc Wc tgw Mth ywir 
obMn'idoathMihedBaUiefvedagdjtaiaitaimoAfiiGuAiMrtcuH la tfa Seaih ij eompwtbte 
lo tb» denial ef full ciiiieaiUp tod veda< ri|te la Ladaa (mmlpua la CaHfatBii today. 



1. AtUfourilrfiMMlc 

2. CmfyCIOkadMtoiMiawiikEaiUih/avkiUnrrltiriuadHlNSaj^rdaea. 

3. WWT«auxMHqr1aM«ica(iteteM«IAUSkilkiEkaDld;(aaMiad(i»Ht]raidy 
nrfri raw KailUb ifiltrmwri hMMiia rf n>. 

4. llmininr ri 1 1»tai1rnhMf>«iiTfc rfffihainljiaigfinlnn Tjili raiiril firlil 

5. SaflMi»piffoapnipnBt»«MiddMBMli« gftoM ^VAioLoiAi>ai<MlNS . 

.Ttanliyouforywi) ogprioiwBrtbMfcioaaterttMaadafdriaiMlL. W« «ia looMat fcw»id lo » 
follow up r n m ii t ' \ ^ vaa *a4 Vto p wriiW Gow m iUatm !>■ U«a l i aninn « at ui««» propgiii^ 


Fr.Ml(ualV<^ ' Or.LeaNignM ' 



Memorandum ^ 

lmn»9r«ion w^ N«turi*ix«*oii Swvto* 


Subject: Volunteara 

OatK Jun* 24, 1996 

Jorge Eisemann, Jr. '^''0'"= Office of Examinations 

Deputy District Director OlclahOBa City 


Vo lunteers, both fanily nenbers and iii*»v>^r e of th« f"'Tp" nitv. have 
be6n Very neipful to this office. The teenage children of some of 
our employees have accompanied their parents to work and have 
assisted with clerical work. They have not come on a regular 
basis, but occasionally when they are not in school. In the 
summer, teenagers have extra time to volunteer, plus it gives then 
work experience in an office setting. Recently we have had other^ 
volunteers, some froa a Rainbow Assembly, others from the general 

Some of the things they have dona are: filed the Charge Copy of 
File Route Slipa (G-102a) numerically, filed alien fllea on the 
shelf in Recorda, matched returned mail with fllea, typed call-in 
letters for naturalization interviewa (N-430) , typed notlcea for 
final hearinga (N-445) , ordered approved viae patltlona (1-130 and 
1-140) for permanent realdent applicationa (Z-485) and placed name 
changes and Notlcea of Naturalization Oath Ceremony (N-445) in 
completed filea froa naturalization hearinga. Only family membera 
have been permitted in tha file rooa. 

This office does not have RA7ACS, AFACS, NACS, LAN, or any other 
advanced systems tha leurgar officea have. Thla meana a mora labor- 
intensive situation for aaall officea. Several of the thinga tha 
volunteers have dona ara not required if tha office haa the 
advanced systems mentioned, but they require a great deal of time. 

The hours contributed by our volunteera over tha couraa of a year 
are not great, but many tlaaa tha aaaiatanca coaaa at a time whan 
we are overwhelmed, ao it glvea a "ahot In tha ara" to the 
employees to hava help. 

Nancy Hand 

Supervisory Olstrlct 
Adjudications Officer 



SluS*'i'^Z*li"' Jr. 

^^Smitcee on National Security, 
incirnational Affairs, and Criminal Justice 

Dear Sir, 

The following is subnrdtted to your office in order to assist in 
your inquiries . 

•nia Dallas office will not be telling the truth and will either 
■hred materials or not subodJIc^the requested information. So this is 
sent to you to compare with what is sent to you from Dallas. If in 
fact the Service provides a breakdown by location of the 
information you have requested. Compare this situation to the 
situation at the Krome Service Processing Center where members of 
Congress were lied to and rank and file employees were forced to 
participate by local managers. ^^^ [^cJi\^^ ^,+^l.i*=*-^ -^tj 

The District Director here has used 'volunteer* permanent resident\ 
aliens to handle naturalization files, clearly a security ^ 
violation. A list of thcseal^ens used to work here are kept in the ^,j-;- 
cooiputer on the Chief of the Records Section desk. Additionally 
there have been several security violations reported, thru 
chanxmels, and either covered up or ignored .1 The employees at this, 
office are understandably upset over this. "i^c-*»H vjAck^^ ^^jZa^°^ 

Furthermore there has been approximately 10,000 naturalization 
files processed for ceremony and issuance of naturalization 
certificates. Not one file has been referred to investigations 
section for fraud. This is absolutely amazing. Those files found to 
have prosecutable discrepancies were presented to the District 
Director for action, he ordered them returned to the naturalization 1 JT 
section for issuance of certificate. \<3-^*"^ -iU-t *■ ^^ ^rc-J jiA-'^^^'^ "^ 

Additionally the District Director has ordered all employees to 
participate, on duty, at a huge natu ralization ceremo ny Sept ember 
17, 1996 at a local stadium. K iiipluytifta are CO Ba UBhHra, ydiKliiij 
attendants, security, etc. ?T7 , 000 is being taken and spent from 
Service funds to pay for this «ereraony. ^1 i„, 

We request that you send an investigator from your staff to talk to 
the employees at this office. We will continue to send material 
related to this as we acquire it. 




February IS, 1996 


MEMORANDUM FOR: President William Clinton 
Vice President Al Gore 

FROM: Henry Cisneros 


SUBJECT; Utilizing Volunteers to Reduce INS Naturalization 

You asked me the other day whether qualified volunteers could 
be generated to assist the INS in naturalization activities. The 
attached memo from the Industrial Areas Foundation in Los Angeles 
describes what is possible. 



bcc: Leon Panecta 
John Emerson 
Maria Echaveste 
Rahm Emanuel 
Elaine Kamarck 








TEL. 818-584-0774 FAX 818-584-0972 


Bmckground: Oo Jan. 30. 1996 1AF<'' Aciivf riiiT/-t»hip rjimp»ifn luden from New Yocic, S*a 
Fraucitco, Chicago and Loi Angeles joined by CoagrcM member Xavier Becerra. met with (NS 
Commissiooer Meisuncr. That day ACC leaden orfered a ipeortc proposal to addiess bacUog. increase 
cfficicDcy and reduce cost without compromising the quality of adjudication's. 

INS ioaction will deny 300,000 Latinos the right to vote 
in the 1996 presidential elections in California. 

lAFs Active Citi7en<;hip Cam paign will produce (housands of trained volunteers (o 
idcnlify. screen and process applications for NaturaJi7Jilion. 

1 AFs Active Citi7en<; hip Campaign is willing to work with INS to increase efficiency by 
testing and screening applicants. 

per month. 

will submit a minimum of 1200 quality applications 

lAFs Active Citirenship Campaien is willing to produce lOO's of volunteers to work 
with INS to facilitate administrative swearing in. 

lAFs Active Citiz.cnship Campai^a wi ll register 26.000 citizens to vo te. 

lAFs Active Citircnship CjmpMJgn will identify and turn out 52.000 occa.sional vo ters. 
conduc t 5000 house meetings, encourage vote by mail and create voter inierf-tt arp imrl 
JTTsues ot Allirmativc Action and Minimum Wage. 

lAPji Active Ciii7f.nship Campaign will influence 300.0 00 voters in preparation f or Nov 
1996. " 

ip Campaign will target 960 under-represented precincts, produce 
5000 precinct leaders and tum out 96.000 voters for the 1996 pre'iidrniial flK ^j^>n 

lAFs Active CitiTCnship Ciimpaign i s willing to fieht along «!icle the Clinto n. 
Administration in efforts to ma;timize INS efficiency and effectiv eness and to decrease 
massive hafH^p* whil>; increasing the number of New Americaiw. 


[j-dAJ- kcvi/v i-^A 



20-Peb-1996 08:33pm 

TO: Jennifer M. O'Connor 

FROM: LeeAnn Inadomi 

Office of Cabinet Affairs 

CC: Shana E. Tesler 


I just spent SO minutes on the phone with someone in Meissner's 
office that sat in on her meeting with lAF. She DID NOT in any 
way walk away from the goal of Citizenship USA. 

Background on processing applications in LA: 

before the announcement of Citizenship USA (8/95) there 
were roughly 224,000 applications pending. Since that time they 
have not increased their backlog - there are still 224,000 

before the announcement, INS officers were conducting 
roughly 600 interviews per day. They are now at 1600/day. 

last year, they were swearing in 10,000 new citizens per 
month. Starting in April they will be swearing in SO, 000/month. 

last summer there were 33 INS officers in LA. They are 
currently in the process of hiring more staff and had been waiting 
for some time for Congress to approve their re -programming 
request. By May, they will have 145 officers. 

INS Is definitely on track to meet their goal by this summer (more 
like Labor Day) . They have had initial conversations with Elaine 
Kamark about ways to improve their process. 

they are talking to NPR about possibly working with the 
Park Service and GSA to find sites for their ceremonies (they can 
process the applications, but if they don't have a site for 
swearing-in ceremonies get stalled) . Apparently finding sites in 
LA is a problem. 

they are also talking to NPR about using furloughed workers 
or detallees. 

another way they can use Federal workers is to have them do 
the English/civics questioning part of the interviews. This would 

TB 000277 



shorten the interviews of INS officers and they can then process 
applications more quickly. 

INS would not recommend the Vice President meeting with this 
group. If this is a meeting that has to happen, then we should 
definitely have someone from INS in the meeting. 

Let me know what else you need. 



To: Fernanda Young 

From: ^.^--Jany Shinin^tra 

Date: (;^'6A50/19W ^ 

Subject: ^HNACS-Mgeting Report 

This is to documeot issues discussed and agreements reached with program offices during 
today's NACS meeting. Meeting attendees were representatives from HQOPS. HQBEN, 

The purpose of the meeting was to review HQIRM/EDS Tiger Team's proposed plans, 
prepared to reach timely resolution of the most critical problems having impact to 
production. Proposed plans developed with program offices' interests taken into 
consideration were presented by Fernanda Young. The attendees agreed to HQIRM's 
recommended prioritization and plans developed in handling NACS high priority action 

The following four mi^or topics were discussed: 





NACS Performance 

Please refer to Meeting Reports presented at the meeting for more detail informatioa. 

The following lists actloii items based on agreements reached, in efforts to reach 
timely resolatkm and to improve overall NACS performance: 

1 . Provide clear direction to SC s to know when to check off FD2S8 during 
RCFTmg. as required for scheduling Oath Ceremonies. HQOPS/HQBEN 

2. Do a sweep in mainframe to determine the amount of population that do not have 
FD2S8 box checked during RCFTmg. EDS 

Provide direction and necessary requirements for cases without FD2S8 box 
checked, to determine whether to doseout these cases or not, once results of the 
sweep is provided. HQOPS 



Sgeakwith Don Crocetti oo FBI takin&j:4 mondisja retumj^_g^ 
n^^Ib^E~ This would jeopardize Adjudications, since Adjudicati ona makes an 
assumEtionj hai a case is OK after 45 da ys we have not received a response &om 
t he FBI . HQOPS ^ 

Follow up with LOS for s^prppiiate action to take on 132.000 old ceremony cases 
from 1992 or older, in efforts to close up all cases with all proper flags and 
provide a report of exception cases HQOPS 

Inquire five NACS sites to collect comments, in reference to Eicon Gateway 
performance and overall basic NACS on-line access. HQOPS 

Provide to HQOPS an email template of questionnaire to be used by NACS sites 
to provide responses to HQ, in reference to NACS performance. Pete Rundd 

On-line NACS will be taken off-line during July 4 - S, in efforts to acquire most 
off-line hours required to support NACS performance related efforts. Need 
HQOPS input and concurrence. Terry O'Reilly 

Prepare NACS off-line announcements through E-mail and NACS News. 

Next meeting will be held 6/27/96, at 2:00 p.m.. in 3rd floor conf. room 321 1. 



Senator Simpson. Now, please, Kathi Flynn. 


Ms. Flynn. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Immigra- 
tion Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this 
testimony of my observations of the naturaUzation process as a 
staff member of the International Institute of Lowell. It is an honor 
to speak before you on this very significant issue of great interest 
to the communities I have served for 13 years through the Inter- 
national Institute. 

My name is Kathi Flynn and I am a proud resident of Lowell, 
MA, a city about 20 miles north of Boston and well-known for over 
100 years as a center of welcome to new immigrants arriving to 
this country from all over the world. I have lived in Lowell all my 
life. It has been my pleasure to work with this community of immi- 
grants and refugees for 13 years, assisting them in applying for 
green cards, petitions, reentry permits, and their applications for 

My interest in our city's rich ethnic history predates my work 
with the International Institute. Both my late husband and I were 
very, very active in ethnic activities. My late husband was chair- 
man of the Greater Lowell Regatta Festival Committee, and also 
with the Lowell National Historical Park. The city of Lowell re- 
spects and promotes the unique and fascinating mix of ethnicities 
found here, and I am happy to be a part of these efforts. 

You are probably familiar with Lowell history as a center of tex- 
tile manufacturing. The International Institute of Lowell, now 75 
years old, played a role in that history. Originally, the institute 
was established to serve the large number of girls moving to Lowell 
from Ireland and other parts of Europe to work in the textile mills. 
The institute also helped the girls that came from the farms to 
work in the mills. They helped them get established. 

Gradually, over the last 75 years, the institute has evolved into 
a multiservice center for people coming from all over the world, and 
the institute has served 61 language and ethnic groups over the 
years, and as you know, Lowell has the second largest population 
of Cambodians in the country. Assistance with the citizenship ap- 
plication is by far at this point the largest service that we provide. 
We assist approximately 150 people per month with the citizenship 

Our clients, mostly Southeast Asians who resettled as refugees 
in the 1980's, are enthusiastic and eager to naturahze. After living 
here for 10 years or more and learning about our U.S. traditions, 
becoming involved in the life of our community as parents, home- 
owners, business people, they are ready to become citizens. In 
many ways, they reflect the enormous interest in citizenship found 
in immigrant communities all across the country. 

Most of our citizenship applicants have come from countries in 
which it was impossible and prohibitive to express a political opin- 
ion. Therefore, the opportunity to vote and express an opinion free- 
ly and openly — what many of us take for granted — is highly valued 
by our applicants. 

In my experience, the improvements INS has made over the last 
few years have facilitated the citizenship process greatly. Standard- 


ized testing has given integrity to the testing process. It has made 
the citizenship process more efficient and more fair. Previously, 
there was no standard procedure. Passing the exam depended sole- 
ly on who was testing the applicant. For instance, one applicant 
could get five questions wrong and pass, while another could get 
one wrong and fail. Now, the process is much more consistent. This 
consistency contributes to raising the confidence level of applicants 
because they know they will be treated equally and fairly. 

The International Institute is a testing site. We test once a 
month, the second Saturday of each month. We interview all our 
applicants, first, to make sure they understand the naturalization 
process; second, to assess the English capability of applicants to 
take the test in English. If the applicant does not demonstrate 
English ability at the time they register for the citizenship civics 
test, we tell them to please go and study more English. If an appli- 
cant is elderly, we advise them on their options to bring an inter- 
preter with them to the INS interview. 

The State of Massachusetts has created a citizenship and democ- 
racy education project that provides comprehensive instruction in 
American civics in English. We expect our applicants to value how 
our Government works and to have a knowledge of American his- 
tory in civics before they take the citizenship test. We provide ap- 
plicants with materials to review. We provide two workshop ses- 
sions the week before the Saturday test. In the review sessions, I 
concentrate quite a bit on spelling. English spelling can be very, 
very difficult and that is where the most problems are, and people 
have found that very, very helpful. 

Our successful applicants have studied English as a second lan- 
guage in a number of programs in Lowell — Lowell High School, 
Middlesex Community College, University of Massachusetts at 
Lowell, programs at the International Institute provided by com- 
munity-based organizations, and ESL classes through local church- 
es. Our applicants have also acquired English through their work 
and their studies at college. All of our successful applicants have 
excellent reading comprehension, although many speak with an ac- 
cent. As I said earlier, our applicants are highly motivated to par- 
ticipate fully in American life. 

We also provide our applicants with a xeroxed copy of the N-400 
and instructions on the citizenship application process. We go over 
the application carefully with the person appl)dng. We ask our ap- 
plicants to take a copy of the citizenship application home, care- 
fully filling it out, paying close attention to all the questions. We 
want them to understand the content of the form so that they will 
be prepared to answer any questions from the INS officer at any 
time in the interview. 

We have been testing since March 1992. During these years, we 
have carefully maintained a secure testing environment. We have 
been in frequent touch with INS to guarantee that we were care- 
fully monitoring our testing. We have attended many workshops on 
security issues and are well-versed in security procedures. Before 
testing, we tell our testing service ahead of time what our capacity 
for testing is. There can be no more than 150 applicants. 

At the day of the test, all apphcants must present a positive I.D., 
such as a driver's license, and their green card. No one is permitted 


to wander through our building. We provide two proctors, instead 
of one, during the classes. We lock up the tests. Because we screen 
our applicants' applications thoroughly, we can pick up on any in- 
advertent problems. 

Nonprofits with a longstanding reputation in the community 
such as ours are in the best position to serve as sites for citizenship 
testing. These community-based organizations have the back- 
ground, knowledge, and respect of the immigrant communities they 
serve. They have knowledge acquired through years of experience 
of immigration law and have a thorough understanding of the nat- 
uralization process. They know the histories, backgrounds and 
problems with their communities. They are committed to assisting 
legal immigrants through the legal process and maintaining the in- 
tegrity of that process. As nonprofits, they are accountable by law 
to their community boards and other community institutions. For 
these reasons, they are ideal collaborators. 

We have a very positive working relationship with INS. As an ex- 
ample, to facilitate processing, INS held a naturalization ceremony 
in Lowell at the Lowell Memorial Auditorium. INS interviewed 600 
applicants in a 4-day period and on the fifth day we swore in 400 
people. In October, we will work together with INS to assist our ap- 
plicants once again, and this time it will be done in Boston. 

In conclusion, citizenship is of vital importance to our commu- 
nities. Immigrants contribute significantly to American life. That 
contribution is amplified many more times when immigrants be- 
come citizens. It is my hope that the INS can continue in its effort 
to encourage naturalization. Many immigrants have come up to me 
and said that for years they have been waiting for the opportiinity 
to become a citizen, and we are proud to have played a role in help- 
ing that dream come true. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Flynn follows:! 

Prepared Statement of Kathi Flynn 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, thank you 
for the opportunity to submit this testimony of my observations of the naturalization 
process as a staff member of the International Institute of Lowell. It is an honor 
to speak before you on this very significant issue of great interest to the commu- 
nities I have served for 13 years through the International Institute. 


My name is Kathi Flynn. I am a proud resident of LoweU, Massachusetts, a city 
29 miles north of Boston, well-known for over a himdred years as a center of wel- 
come to new immigrants arriving to this country form all over the world. I have 
lived in Lowell all of my life. It has been my pleasure to work with this community 
of immigrants and refugees for thirteen years, assisting them in applying for their 
green cards, petitions, reentry permits, and the application for citizenship, the N- 
400. My interest in our city's rich ethnic history pre-dates my work with the Inter- 
national Institute. Both my late husband and I were active in ethnic activities — my 
late husband as chair of the Ethnic Committee of Greater Regatta of LoweU. Lowell 
is know as the first planned industrial city in the coimtry, and is know as having 
the first national urban industrial park. The city of Lowell respects and promotes 
the unique and fascinating mix of ethnicities found here, and I am happy to be part 
of those efforts. 


You are probably familiar with Lowell's history as a center of textile manufactur- 
ing. The International Institute of Lowell — now 75 years old — played a role in that 


history. Originally, the institute was estabhshed to serve the large numbers of 
young girls moving to Lowell from Ireland and other parts of Europe to work in the 
textile mills. The institute helped those millgirls vidth their immigration papers. 
Gradually, the institute evolved as a multi-service center for peoples coming from 
all over the world. The institute has served 61 language and ethnic groups over the 
years. Lowell has the second largest population of Cambodians in the country. 


Assistance with the citizenship application is by far the largest service we provide. 
We assist 150 per month with the citizenship application. Our cUents, mostly South- 
east Asians who re-settled as refugees in the 1980s, are enthusiastic and eager to 
naturalize. After living here for 10 years or more and learning about our U.S. tradi- 
tions, becoming involved in the life of our community as parents, as homeowners 
and business people, they are ready to become citizens. In many ways, they reflect 
the enormous interest in citizenship found in immigrant communities all across the 
country. Most of our citizenship applicants have come form countries in which it 
was impossible and prohibitive to express a political opinion. Therefore, the oppor- 
tunity to vote and express an opinion freely and openly — what many of us take for 
granted — is highly valued by our applicants. 


In my experience, the improvements INS has made over the last few years have 
facilitated the citizenship process greatly. Standardized testing has given integrity 
to the testing process. It has made the citizenship process more efficient and more 
fair. Previously, there was no standard procedure. Passing the exam depended solely 
on who was testing the applicant. For instance, one applicant could get five ques- 
tions wrong and pass, while another could get one wrong and fail. Now the process 
is much more consistent. This consistency contributes to raising the confidence level 
of applicants because they know they will be treated equally and fairly. 

The International Institute is a testing site. We test once a month, the second 
Saturday of the month. We interview all applicants to (1) make sure they under- 
stand the naturalization process and (2) to assess the English capability of appli- 
cants to take the test in English. If the applicant does not demonstrate English abil- 
ity at the time they register for the citizenship civics test, we tell them to study 
more English. If an appUcant is elderly, we advise them on their options to bring 
an interpreter with them to the INS interview. The state of Massachusetts has cre- 
ated a Citizenship and Democracy Education project that provides comprehensive 
instruction in American civics in English. We expect our applicants to value how 
our government works, and have a knowledge of American history and civics before 
they take the citizenship test. We provide applicants with materials to review and 
we provide two workshop sessions the week before the Saturday test. In the review 
sessions, I concentrate qviite a bit on spelling. You know how difficult English spell- 
ing can be. People find that very helpful. 

Our successful applicants have studied English as a Second language at a number 
of programs in Lowell. Lowell High School, Middlesex Community College, Univ. of 
MA at Lowell, programs at the International Institute provided by community based 
organizations and ESL classes through local churches. Our applicants have also ac- 
quired English through their work and their studies at college. All of our successful 
applicants have excellent reading comprehension, although many speak with an ac- 
cent. As I said earlier, our applicants are highly motivated to participate fully in 
American life. 

We also provide our applicants with a Xeroxed copy of the N-400 and instructions 
on the citizenship application process. We go over the application carefully with the 
person applying. We ask the applicant to take the copy of the citizenship application 
home and carefully fill it out, paying close attention to all questions. We want them 
to understand the content of the form so that they will be prepared to answer any 
questions from the INS officer at the time of the interview. 


We have been a testing site since March of 1992. During these years we have 
carefully maintained a seciu-e testing environment. We have been in frequent touch 
with INS to guarantee that we were carefully monitoring our testing. We have at- 
tended many workshops on security issues and are well versed in security proce- 
dures. Before testing, we tell our testing service ahead of time what our capacity 
for testing is. It can be no more than 150 applicants. At the day of the test, all ap- 
plicants must present a positive I.D., such as a driver's license and a green card. 


No one is permitted to wander through the building. We provide two proctors at the 
time of the test. We lock up all tests. Because we screen our appUcations thor- 
oughly, we can pick up on any inadvertent problems. 


Non-profits with a long standing reputation in the community, such as ours, are 
in the best position to serve as site for citizenship testing. These community based 
organizations have the background, knowledge and respect of the immigrant com- 
munities they serve. They have knowledge acquired through years of experience of 
immigration law, and have a thorough understanding of the naturalization process. 
They know the histories, backgrounds, and problems within their communities. 
They are committed to assisting legal immigrants through the legal process and 
maintaining the integrity of that process. As non-profits, they are accountable, by 
law, to their community boards and other community institutions. For these rea- 
sons, they are ideal collaborators. 

We have had a very positive working relationship with the INS. As an example, 
to facilitate processing, INS held a naturalization ceremony here in Lowell at Lowell 
Memorial Auditorium. INS interviewed 600 applicants and swore-in 400 in one day. 
In October, we will work together with INS to assist our applicants, this time in 


Citizenship is of vital importance to our communities. Immigrants contribute sig- 
nificantly to American life. That contribution is amplified many more times when 
immigrants become citizens. It is my hope that the INS can continue in its efforts 
to encovu-age nattiralization. Many immigrants have come up to me and said that 
for years they have been waiting for the opportunity to become a citizen. We are 
proud to have played a role in helping that dream come true. 

Senator Simpson. Well, thank you very much. That was most in- 
triguing, and it sounds to me like your organization is an extraor- 
dinary example of just what an immigrant assistance organization 
should be about, and I am certainly impressed by that. We are well 
aware of Lowell's rich immigrant history because I have assisted 
your senior Senator in obtaining special grants, various unbeliev- 
able requests through the two decades, funding for Lowell refugee 
resettlement efforts. You are very fortunate to have such a spokes- 
man and a loyal ally, so I am going to shp over and take a look 
at it all when I get to Harvard. [Laughter.] 

And I will not bring the senior Senator — well, I may bring him. 
It is remarkable, and I will get to a question here in a moment. 

I want to note for the record that Ms. Jenks has provided a truly 
impressive set of attachments to her written testimony — it is very 
complete — to support the statements that she makes, and I would 
urge those with an interest in this issue of possible interference 
with naturalization from on high to read her testimony and many 
of the attached documents. We certainly don't have the time to re- 
view all that, but it is all there and it is all attributable and it is 
there for people to read. 

The Center for Immigration Studies has provided us in Congress 
and the country with policy research analysis on U.S. immigration 
policy and reform efforts for a number of years, and you have obvi- 
ously been personally involved in the current naturalization initia- 
tive. We passed the employer sanctions legislation more than 10 
years ago; that is, penalties against employers who knowingly 
hire — I notice that word gets left out now and then — 'Tmowingl/' 
hire illegal, undocumented persons. 

I thir^ all observers of the issue would agree that it has been 
less effective, certainly, than Congressman Mazzoli and I expected 


when we drafted that law in the early 1980's. I personally feel that 
fraudulent documents have had the most important role in under- 
mining the effectiveness of sanctions, but £in equally important rea- 
son for its relative ineffectiveness has been a lack of enforcement 
by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. For whatever rea- 
sons, through several administrations, or at least two-and-a-half, 
they have simply been unwilling to make the effort. 

We might speculate on what might have been the result if an ap- 
plication of resoiu-ces, management time and interest, assistance 
from the Vice President's office and all such things, as we have 
seen with this citizenship initiative, had been directed toward the 
enforcement of employer sanctions. I think the American public, it 
would be my view, would look at the resources directed here and 
wonder if those resources might have been better directed toward 
the enforcement of those who knowingly are hiring illegal, undocu- 
mented persons; that is, employers who flaunt the system. 

Might you agree that if a similar effort had been made with em- 
ployer sanctions, the illegal immigration problem might be greatly 
reduced today? 

Ms. Jenks. That is very possible. The other impact, I think, that 
is very important to consider here of this naturalization program 
and the pressure coming down from above to naturalize 1 million- 
plus new citizens before the end of the year also had a very strong 
impact on INS employees. In the enforcement sections, in inves- 
tigations, in all branches of the INS, basically, they felt that natu- 
ralization was the focus of the Agency. 

They were having to detail their enforcement personnel, inspec- 
tors, all kinds of personnel to the naturalization program and so 
they didn't have the resources that they needed to do even the level 
of investigation, and so on, that they had been doing before this. 
They were losing their personnel to naturalization, and the very 
clear impression of these employees is that their jobs didn't matter. 

Senator Simpson. Well, that is the troubling part of this. 

Ms. Fl3ain, both nonprofit agencies such as your own and 
forprofit agencies are permitted to administer these standardized 
citizenship tests. It seems to me that some of the most publicized 
abuses of the testing process have come from the forprofit busi- 
nesses who have a financial stake in impressing prospective clients 
with a very favorable pass/fail rate, and then, of course, the some- 
times ideologically driven nonprofits. 

But what are your views on that subject? Should test affiUates 
be limited to nonprofit agencies? INS officials have also said they 
are troubled by the use sometimes of ethnic community entities 
that are too eager to help the apphcants pass the test. What safe- 
guards would you suggest which would prevent such community 
agencies from abusing the trust, along with the forprofit organiza- 
tions which might be abusing the trust? Could you share that? 

Ms. Flynn. Well, of course, I am very prononprofit, naturally. 
The forprofit is a mone3rmaking entity. Therefore, I don't know if 
they would be as strict or have as much integrity as a nonprofit 
would. As for the other question, would you repeat the last half of 

Senator SiMPSON. The other one was about the ethnic-driven — 
the phrase from the INS was they are troubled somewhat by the 


use of "ethnic community entities that are too eager to help the ap- 
pHcants pass the test." 

Ms. Flynn. Well, you know, I am sure there could be a problem 
there. We are not one-community-oriented at our agency. There are 
others that are spread around, but if they follow the way the test- 
ing program is set up, you should not run into any of those prob- 
lems. If it is an ethnic group giving it, they should follow what they 
have been taught by the testing services. They shouldn't be giving 
any special consideration to their group to get them to pass that 
test. We do not agree with that at all in our agency. We don't allow 
any of that. 

Senator Simpson. Well, I think that is admirable. I know the 
time — I will give Ted a little extra. Just another question about 
where we are, and I will ask Ms. Flynn, the 1990 census found that 
only 40 percent of all immigrants had become U.S. citizens. That 
was the lowest rate of naturalization since the 1920's. Much has 
changed since 1990. Five times as many naturalization applications 
were filed in 1995 as were filed in 1991. Even the INS has no idea 
whether this historic rise in naturalization applications will con- 
tinue through the end of the decade. 

Could you give us your views? We know about the bill and the 
people becoming eligible and the fear of Proposition 187 and the 
fear of what was happening with the debate on welfare from both 
parties. What are your views? In the 1950 census, just after World 
War II, we found that almost 75 percent of immigrants had become 
citizens. That was the high point. Do you think we will reach or 
exceed that level? What do you think will happen? 

Ms. Flynn. I am sure we will exceed that level, and from what 
I see, the reasons for the high influx as far as we are concerned 
are the amnesty program, that people who got the amnesty pro- 
gram are now eligible for citizenship. A few years ago, the law 
came in that everyone had to update their green cards. Many peo- 
ple have opted — instead of renewing the green card, they were 
going for citizenship because we would explain both processes to 
them. Another one is the high political resentment that is out there 
toward immigrants, and they feel that by becoming a citizen that 
they are going to be part of the American dream and not be consid- 
ered immigrants an3nnore. 

Senator Simpson. Ted, please. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. 
Jenks, I want to say that there are a number of things that you 
mention which I would certainly agree with. I think there are 
needs for improvement that we have been talking about today — the 
better job of testing English and civics. We need to do better to en- 
sure the integrity of the whole process, as was related to some of 
the questions here today. 

On some of the other matters that were considered by the per- 
formance review which were referenced in your comments, as I un- 
derstand it, some of them were misguided, but as I understand it, 
there was the debate in INS, Justice, and the performance review 
about some of these suggestions. EUminate in-person interviews — 
that was rejected; the proposal for same-day service, rejected. The 
proposal to use prisoners to help with paperwork was never imple- 
mented, and the proposal for personalized letters from the Presi- 


dent to all new citizens was rejected, and the pressure to approve 

Obviously, the numbers must have increased, but still, as I un- 
derstand it, the rejection rates are still at about 17 percent, which 
was the average before. So there were obviously strong actions that 
were necessary when you have this 300-percent increase in the ap- 
plications, and if they hadn't gone forward, people could have wait- 
ed up to 4 years. Still, we need to see some improvement. 

As I understand it, those criminal checks now are tighter, not 
looser, since the INS now gets the FBI response for every appli- 
cant. We had that bUp period where I guess 60 or so got through 
the process, which was during the transition and which is being ad- 
dressed. Now, there is more extensive FBI involvement. 

Also, the INS has the world-renowned Center for AppUed Lin- 
guistics reviewing the EngHsh test, so hopefully we will get some- 
thing here. INS has contracted with experts to review the civics 
exam, too. So some of these matters with regard to INS, and also 
the Center for AppHed Linguistics and also some of those reviews 
about outside testers, sort of escaped your critique. 

I don't know whether you have some comment. I want to give 
you a chance. 

Ms. Jenks. I actually would Uke to comment. First of all, I would 
Uke to emphasize that I didn't come to any of the conclusions in 
this testimony lightly. I reviewed thousands of pages of documents 
from the INS, from the White House, from Vice President Cxore's 
office, and everything that I said in that testimony has an attach- 
ment to back it up. I consider these to be very serious charges and 
I certainly would not make them without the evidence to back 
them up. 

My information as of this past week on, for example, the FBI 
checks on criminals differs from yours somewhat. For example, the 
reports now coming out of the Chicago INS Office are that about 
300 criminals were naturaUzed. The other thing to keep in mind 
with the FBI checks coming back is that, of course, simply because 
there is a hit reported by the FBI does not mean that any alien 
is ineligible for naturalization, but if that alien wrote on the appli- 
cation that he or she had not ever been charged or arrested or £iny 
of that, then that is perjury on the application, and that does make 
the person ineUgible. 

The other thing is that there were some other options that the 
INS could have considered with the fingerprint checks. For exam- 
ple, there are now electronic scanners that can send the print to 
the FBI and get a response back the same day. So the entire 60- 
day waiting period could have been eliminated and the whole proc- 
ess made much less labor-intensive had the INS spent some of its 
Citizenship USA money on that kind of technology. Rather than 
bringing in over 900 temp workers and, you know, all these other 
things, they could have made other choices that, in my view, would 
have been better for the integrity of the process. 

Senator Kennedy. Well, we have been wrestUng around in terms 
of immediate information available on illegals, for example, and 
maybe we need to have the 1-day service in terms of the finger- 
prints. I don't see why from a technological point of view it 
shouldn't be there. I think all of us will let them respond to the 


reasons why they made one judgment over the other, but the fact 
that they did it the other way — we wish they had done it one way, 
but the idea that for years they didn't have the adequate foUowup 
with the FBI, that they only regarded the hits as being the cases 
and now they are requiring every single instance to have some fol- 
lowup would generally give me the impression that that is probably 
a better way, a more comprehensive way of doing it. 

Well, people will be able to go over these recommendations and 
be able to evaluate whether these changes were done because of 
the pressure in terms of the numbers of applicants, for some of the 
reasons which Ms. Flynn has pointed out which I would agree — the 
numbers, the amnesty coming on stream, and also, I think, the 
backlash in terms of some of the rhetoric that was around during 
the general debate and discussion, and the focus on the illegal and 
the spill-off on legal. I think an awful lot happened on that. 

But the bottom line at the end of the day is I think you are going 
to find that they did take extraordinary steps and they did target 
the principal areas, some of which were Republican, some of which 
were Democrat. I don't know what the figures are in the other 
cities, but they certainly did get registration in some areas more 
Republican than Democrat, and back and forth. So we will let his- 
tory or others review those administrative steps that were taken. 

Finally, I want to thank Kathi Flynn. I have to just pick up just 
for a moment on Lowell, on the Cambodians, I think, because this 
was one of the areas that Senator Simpson and I — how we were 
going to provide help and assistance to the settlements for people, 
and that period of time, as you know, has gone from 3 years down 
to just several months, 6 or 8 months, probably, now. We have been 
always trying to figiu-e out how that could be done better with less 
money and indeed be done more efficiently. 

But what we have really never looked at is the second wave of 
immigration of those people that were settled, and Lowell has re- 
ceived it and it has been a phenomenon and it has been a reality 
and it has been a lesson of immigration policy, where many of 
these individuals were settled in different parts of the country. You 
have got 3 Cambodian temples up in Lowell now, and the commu- 
nity involvement and support, and the extraordinary efforts in edu- 
cation and what was done up there with the school committee in 
getting teachers that understood the language really uniquely from 
other parts of the country. 

One of the factors that has so impressed me is this is a hard- 
working, blue-collar town and they expanded their school budget to 
deal with these issues, with very, very little help and assistance. 
I want to thank Senator Simpson for some help and assistance that 
we did receive up there, but in proportion to the kind of burden 
that the members of the community took on through there it was 
just an extraordinary effort of really reaching out and trying to 
help and assist. Not that the community hasn't got problems in 
terms of dealing with some of the burdens that have come up 
there, but it is really an extraordinary tribute to the people up 
there, and I know that your organization worked very closely with 

We want to thank you very much for being here and joining us 
here today. 


Ms. Flynn. Thank you. 

Senator Kennedy. We will look forward to drawing on your 
knowledge and the knowledge of the institute about these issues as 
we deal with them in the future. 

I want to thank the Chair very much for a very informative and 
interesting and, I think, constructive hearing that will be very val- 
uable to all of us. I thank the Chair. 

Senator SiMPSON. I thank you very much, both of you. It was 
very helpful to us, and I will submit some questions in writing to 
Ms. Jenks. 

I don't want to make it into a hearing about whether the White 
House — about how much pressure was involved, but obviously your 
documents disclose a White House involvement and a vice presi- 
dential involvement, not sinister. Let us leave that out. The point 
is not that all of the streamlining suggestions of the White House 
or the Vice President's office were bad necessarily, but rather that 
the motive was extraordinarily bad, if that is the case, and dan- 
gerous not only for naturalization, but potentially for other admin- 
istrative agencies that get tangled up in that process trjdng to meet 
their own statutory responsibilities. 

So if you can, in the course of answering questions — I think 
Doris Meissner testified when we first had that hearing that she 
had a stated goal of making naturalization a high priority. You 
have stated that and I thirdj^ it was the highest of motives and 
goals, but something happened along the way, and then the role 
community-based organizations played in the process, nonprofits 
versus profits; the impact of Citizenship USA on the INS employ- 
ees with whom you have spoken and have their testimony; a reli- 
able estimate of the nimiber of criminals naturalized because of the 
improper waiting period. Those things are important to us in our 
oversight capacity, and you have helped us to come to a better 
record on that and that will be available to colleagues in the fu- 
ture. So the record will remain open for a week. 

The subcommittee is planning on having a hearing on citizenship 
on October 22, where we will look at the statutory requirements for 
citizenship and the propriety of birthright citizenship in relation to 
today's public support systems. That is a tough issue. That is the 
one about a child of illegal parents in the United States is a legal 
citizen of the United States. I don't want to spend a great deal of 
time there, but that is a burning issue, and then later having an 
opportunity to apply under the legal provisions for the same per- 

That is not in any way but just an examination. The House ap- 
parently had done that. We did not deal with it, nor cared to deal 
with it in the latest immigration legislation, but we will have a 
hearing on it and see if people are sajdng, well, you know, it is in 
the Constitution or it should be resolved or they are not under the 
jurisdiction of the United States if they are not citizens of the Unit- 
ed States, and that type of thing, and we will do that in a respon- 
sible way, as we have tried to do other things along that line. 

So I thank Senator Kennedy for his presence and taking a good 
deal of his own personal time through the years to attend hearings 
of the subcommittee. I always tried to do that when he was chair- 
man and, as I say, it has been a very gratifying relationship, with 


some legislation on the books which generally we can concur with, 
with a few bend points that don't fit. 

So to John Knepper, who is assisting here, and Chip Wood, 
steady people, steady persons who have been here for so long, and 
Trudy Settles here, and our intern, Amina Al-Sayad, and the Rev. 
R.W. Day of some church — oh, excuse me — an old friend. Somebody 
said, what are you going to do, Dick? He said, something else; I am 
not going to ever do this again. And to Michael Myers and to Ted's 
staff and to all, thank you very much. 

That concludes this hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 



U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, DC. 
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room 
SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Alan K. Simpson 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 
Also present: Senator Kennedy. 


Senator Simpson. The hearing will come to order. 

This will be, I think, the last subcommittee hearing in the Senate 
in this session. 

I am very pleased that those who will follow. Democrat and Re- 
publican alike, will take a great interest in this issue. 

It will be done in a bipartisan way, just as Senator Kennedy and 
I have tried to do for 18 years together, and I feel have. Our staffs 
have worked together closely through the years. It is not a partisan 
issue, and it cannot be. It is an Americgm issue. And it is a tough 

So it is good to have you here. We have a fine group of witnesses, 
and look forward to some very credible testimony. During the peri- 
ods I have been Chairman, totaling about 8 years, we have held 
several dozen hearings, but I cannot recall an incident where we 
had three witnesses who were scheduled but then were luiable to 
attend. Yet that is what happened this time and it is too bad. Yet 
each cancellation was necessary. 

Yesterday, not one, but three called to say they could not partici- 
pate. Professor Larry Fuchs of Brandeis University, who was as 
many of you know, Executive Director of the Select Committee 
Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy and who is now co- 
chair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, is ill, and 
could not be with us today. 

Professor Nathan Glaser of Harvard has a lot of water in his 
basement in Csmibridge. You may have seen the television record 
of the tremendous flooding in Boston. He could not be with us as 
a result of the storm. 

Richard Estrada of the Dallas Morning News, and the Commis- 
sion on Immigration Reform, is traveling on a commission trip. His 
scheduled departure was advanced 1 day, which prevented him 



from being here this morning. We shall miss their contributions. 
Nevertheless, we have an excellent panel and an important issue 
to examine. 

Senator Kennedy is with us. There is no water in your basement 
in Cambridge, is there? You escaped? 

Senator Kennedy. We had it all down in Cape Cod. 

Senator Simpson. Boy, it really was something, was it not? 

Senator Kennedy. It was something, up there. 

Senator Simpson. Indeed, there was. 

Well, let me just make a few remarks and then go to Senator 

Citizenship is in the news, in part because of the unprecedented 
number of immigrants who have recently applied for naturaliza- 
tion, and unprecedented numbers actually becoming citizens. 

It has been claimed about many of those who have naturalized, 
that they appear to lack an understanding of ordinary English, and 
have little knowledge and understanding of the inspiring history of 
the United States of America, or the principles and form of Govern- 
ment of this country. 

It has also been claimed that many have now decided to become 
U.S. citizens only because they believe they would be able to retain 
their original nationality as well. 

Some have asserted that a large part of the recent increase has 
been motivated more by concern about the loss of various kinds of 
economic and immigration benefits than by a desire to become 
members of the American political community, and thereby acquire 
the right to vote, and other precious political rights of U.S. citizen- 
ship — and more generally, to become a part of the Nation they love, 
a Nation, a people, to wish they wish to make a permanent com- 

I do not know how much of that is true, but I find it profoundly 
disturbing that any of those claims might indeed be true. If these 
things are happening, citizenship is being seriously devalued, to 
our peril, and even more to the peril of our children and grand- 

I do not think it is too much to say that America's future de- 
pends on the survival of our political institutions, and the wise ex- 
ercise of legitimate power in the national interest, by officials at all 
levels of Government. Yet both of these — survival of political insti- 
tutions and wise exercise of Government power — rest, ultimately, 
on the possession by U.S. citizens of traditional American values, 
including freedom and democracy, as these have been traditionally 
understood, here, in our land. 

It is my feeUng — and I have said this — that American citizenship 
is more precious than any other status a man or woman can have. 
Why is that? Because not only does it guarantee membership in the 
society that offers the most political and civil liberty of any Nation, 
in any stream of history, and the opportunity to participate in 
choosing the Grovemment, and therefore, in crafting the laws that 
will help shape its future. In addition, it provides the immense 
emotional satisfaction of being part of a Nation with a very special 
and wonderful history, full history, filled with great accomplish- 
ments, a Nation that has contributed so much to the world in so 
many ways. 


But all of that is not inevitable. As much as any of us may have 
our own view of this beautiful land, we all know that nothing in 
America's physical environment is magical. There are no mystic va- 
pors that rise from the earth to cause all who breathe it to acquire 
all the values and qualities that must be present in some critical 
mass of people — if, that is, we are to keep intact our political insti- 
tutions, and, indeed, retain the aspects of our national character 
that have contributed not only to the stability and effectiveness of 
our Government, but the successes we have enjoyed in so many 
areas of endeavor. 

No, all of the needed values and virtues must be learned, and 
learned by each person, individually. 

So it is in the national interest, I feel, that immigrants acquire 
the allegiance, the emotional ties, the English-speaking ability, the 
understanding and the valuing of our political institutions before 
they are naturalized. For otherwise, the votes they cast and the de- 
cisions they make as government office holders may move this Na- 
tion toward policies that have been found so destructive for the 
countries from which most of such immigrants have left, seeking a 
better life. 

In this hearing, I would hope we can cover at least three general 

They would be: Should current naturalization requirements be 
changed? No. 2, When should dual citizenship be allowed? And No. 
3, What should be the difference in rights and privileges between 
citizens and permanent resident aliens? 

With respect to that first issue, should there be an increase or 
a decrease in the required level of English language ability, or 
knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and Government? 

Do the current requirements under present day conditions result 
in immigrants naturalizing, and therefore, obtaining the precious 
right to vote, under circumstances in which they can reasonably be 
relied upon to exercise this right in a way that is consistent with 
our traditional political values, and thus in accord with, "the na- 
tional interest"? 

Should there be any change in the period of residence in the 
United States required before an immigrant may natiu-alize? 

Is the current 3-year period required for spouses of citizens, or 
the 5 years required of others — is that appropriate, an appropriate 

Are these sufficient for the development of the emotional ties to 
America, the political allegiance, and the assimilation — and yes, 
"assimilation" is the word I would use, the word used in the work 
of Barbara Jordan, bless her, discussed that as to the assimilation 
of American political values that should exist before the political 
rights of citizenship are granted. 

Then, if we could touch briefly on dual citizenship. When should 
that status be permitted? Should naturalization require the trans- 
fer of full political allegiance to the United States and thus renun- 
ciation of all foreign allegiances? 

What if that renunciation is not recognized by the relevant for- 
eign Government? 

How could such an immigrant demonstrate that he or she will 
transfer full poUtical allegiance to this country? 


It does seem to me that an essential part of the difference be- 
tween citizens and ahens, and one of the most important reasons 
we should not allow aliens to vote, is political allegiance. 

An alien, by definition, owes political allegiance to a foreign 
state. If an alien may become a citizen of the United States, with- 
out giving up his or her former citizenship it surely appears there 
will be a vivid risk of conflicting loyalties, and I think that that de- 
serves our attention. 

Would they take too much into account the interests of the coun- 
try of their alternative nationality, perhaps even doing so if it were 
harmful to the interests of the United States? 

And finally, with regard to the third issue, differences between 
the rights and privileges of citizens, and that of permanent resi- 
dent aliens, should such differences be confined to the poHtical 
realm, such as the right to vote or hold public office, or other Grov- 
emment emplo5rment? Or should there also be differences in other 
areas, such as eligibility to apply for welfgire, or petition for rel- 
atives to immigrate? 

Do differences in nonpolitical areas provided undesirable kinds of 
incentives for naturalization? 

Is it in the national interest for immigrants to seek U.S. citizen- 
ship for a principal reason that they can apply for benefits, or bring 
in members of their family under family reunification? 

So, we will ask our able witnesses to share with the subcommit- 
tee their views on each of these three areas — naturalization re- 
quirements, dual citizenship, the rights and privileges of citizens 
compared to permanent resident aliens. 

I hope each of you would describe your views on these particular 
questions, not only your conclusions, but your reasoning, principles 
that you believe should determine how these questions relating to 
the "meaning of citizenship," should be answered. When should we 
allow the citizen of another country to join our political community 
and thereby obtain a right — equal to that of every adult citizen al- 
ready here — to be part of determining the laws, the policies, and 
the leaders that will be so influential in determining what kind of 
country the United States of America will be in the future? And 
what rights and privileges should be perhaps withheld before they 
take the step of naturalizing? 

Those are fundamental issues that we might explore this morn- 
ing. You will note that we will not focus on the issue of a constitu- 
tional amendment providing that U.S. -bom children of illegal 
aliens are not citizens at birth. That will be the subject, I £im sure, 
of a great deal of debate later, and, I suppose, litigation. 

But I do thank you for your presence. I now recognize the rank- 
ing member. This will be our last hurrah, and then I will not only 
disappear from the scene, but he will have taken Bob Dole off the 
program of face-off, and me off the program of face-off. Lord knows 
what rampaging will go on in the future in that forum. 

But it has been a good run with a good friend, and I have en- 
joyed him, immensely. 


Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


As I mentioned, the chambers of the Senate are quiet, and the 
hearing rooms are quiet, but Senator Simpson is still pursing re- 
sponsibiUties that he has as the Chairman of this important com- 
mittee, and dealing with an informational hearing this morning on 
some of the most basic and fundamental issues, where many people 
are out, I am sure, making a lot of speeches about today. 

But I think having at least this forum to address some of these 
issues is really in the best traditions of our legislative body and 
this committee. So I thank him for his leadership, and also for fo- 
cusing on these issues here today. 

These issues go to the heart of what it means to be an American. 
Naturalization requirements are designed to ensure that new citi- 
zens are prepared to accept not only the benefits but the respon- 
sibilities of citizenship. 

The Constitution itself gives Congress the power to establish uni- 
form rules on naturaUzation, and the 14th amendment made clear 
that all persons bom or naturalized in the United States are citi- 
zens. There are no second-class Americans. 

So today's naturalization requirements have their roots in our 
earliest history. The requirement that immigrants must reside in 
the United States for 5 years before they qualify for citizenship was 
proposed by Thomas Jefferson, and has been the law for most of 
the past two centuries. The requirements of "good moral character" 
and commitment to the Constitution have existed almost as long. 

These time-honored provisions on naturalization — belief in de- 
mocracy, respect for the rights and freedoms of all Americans, and 
commitment to this country — have helped make us the great Na- 
tion that we are today, and serve as guideposts for the future. 

New citizens in Massachusetts recently participated — as a mat- 
ter of fact, last night — it's kind of timely and interesting, and I will 
not read all of it. But just last evening, five immigrants who have 
made a significant public contribution to Massachusetts received 
an Award at the second annual Governor's ceremony, American ap- 
preciation at a ceremony last night in the Sheraton Boston Hotel. 
They included Maria Dominguez. In 1973, at age 22, Dominguez 
escaped Castro's Cuba by boat with other refugees, was accepted 
as a political refugee, and became a citizen in 1989. 

She had not seen her family in Cuba for 18 years. Dominguez 
taught herself English, found work, and eventually graduated, 
summa cum laude, in sociology from Boston University. She has 
worked at the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty 
to Children since 1987. 

Her recommender has said Dominguez has improved the work of 
the society, measurably, across the State, by reaching underserved 
and unserved groups. 

Antonia Friesz, bom in Portugal, the Portuguese Azores, the old- 
est of 17 children. Friesz came to the country in 1955, and 10 years 
later took charge of a small concrete company, turned it into the 
largest subcontractor of concrete floors in the East. S&F Concrete 
Contractors employs 485 workers, and grosses more than $25 mil- 
Hon, and continues to be the principal contractor in many of the 
places in Boston. 

Friesz helped to establish major league soccer in the country, and 
worked to make Boston a venue for the 1994 World Cup Soccer. 


Denash Patel, chief of orthopedic surgery at Massachusetts Gen- 
eral Hospital. Patel pioneered the design of instruments to diag- 
nose and correct knee problems, and has been a continuing profes- 
sor at the Harvard medical schools. 

And the list goes on. Doreen Heinz-Wilkerson, honored for her 
contribution to education, 18 years in the Massachusetts Depart- 
ment of Health, came to the United States from her native Jamaica 
to get an education, and received three degrees — one a doctorate 
from Harvard University. She has been a teacher, principal on the 
faculty of the Harvard Graduate Schools of Education, and has also 
been praised for her administration of the METCO program which 
provides suburban education for minority children, inner city, dur- 
ing the most sensitive period in our history. 

Betty Kit Fong Yau won praise for her early involvement as a 
founding member of the Bridge Committee in Quincy for Asian 
Americans who immigrated from Hong Kong. And the list goes on. 

This is just last night in my own city of Boston, and it is a 
clearer indication as to what is really happening out there than 
some have characterized. 

These voices are impressive signs of the continuing renewal and 
revitalization that new citizens bring to America. As Barbara Jor- 
dan said, "It was immigration that taught us that it does not mat- 
ter where you come from, or who your parents were. What counts 
is who you are." 

Enduring principles of citizenship remain the same. But it is also 
important that we periodically examine the requirements of natu- 
ralization to ensure that they properly reflect those principles in 
our modem society. We should ensure that the English and civics 
exams that are part of the naturalization process adequately meas- 
lu-e their knowledge of English, and our history and our Govern- 

But we should reject the misguided efforts of those who urge us 
to impose restrictive standards that seek homogeneity over diver- 
sity. Such appeals are contrary to our immigrant history and herit- 
age. They are thinly disguised appeals to prejudice and bigotry. 
They ignore the extraordinary contribution that immigrants from 
many different lands have made to our country and its ideals. 

Our national motto is as appropriate today as it was at the be- 
ginning — e pluribus unum — out of many, one. Our citizenship laws 
honor our diversity, and they always should. 

So I commend the Chairman for holding this hearing on these 
fundamental issues, and I look forward to the testimony of our wit- 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SiMPSON. Thank you very much, Ted. 

There is no question of the value of immigration and the success 
stories, but those can only continue if we assure that our systems 
are not abused, and misused. I think we would all concur. 

At this point, I would like to enter the prepared statement of 
Hon. Brian P. Bilbray, a Representative in Congress from the State 
of California. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Bilbray follows:] 


Prepared Statement of Hon. Brian P. Bilbray 

Good morning, Chairman Simpson and Members of the Subcommittee. First, I 
would hke to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on your years of public service and 
your achievements in the area of immigration reform. Your contribution to the peo- 
ple of the United States of America has been unparalleled and you will be sorely 

Second, I would like to extend my gratitude to you for holding this important 
hearing which will, in part, address the issue of automatic United States citizen- 
ship. As you may know, this issue is of great significance to me, personally, because 
I grew up along the Mexican border, dealing with the consequences of an open bor- 
der, which are exacerbated by the strains which automatic citizenship places on the 

Based on this life-long experience, last year I introduced "The Citizenship Reform 
Act of 1995," H.R. 1363, which denies automatic citizenship to children of illegal 
aliens who are bom on U. S. soil. My legislation makes this change statutorily by 
amending the Immigration and Nationality Act. H.R. 1363 has 50 bi-partisan co- 
sponsors, including Representative Jay Kim, who, it is important to note, worked 
within the system to legally immigrate from Korea. 

The current interpretation of the law allows children of illegal alien parents bom 
on U. S. soil to automatically be granted U.S. citizenship. In 1992, over 96,000 ba- 
bies of illegal aliens were bom in California alone. These children then qualify for 
benefits including MedicEiid, AFDC, WIC and SSI. It is my view that this is an in- 
sult to legal aliens, such as my mother, who observed our immigration laws and 
came to the U. S. through the proper channels. 

However, the most striking fact about this issue is that there is no basis of law 
or Supreme Court ruling for the current interpretation. As I will explain further, 
the Fourteenth Amendment and the debate surrounding it is very clear in its asser- 
tion that "All persons bom or naturalized in the United States and subject to the 
jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States." In addition, there has been 
no Supreme Court ruling on a case dealing with the children of illegal aliens. 

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was consistent with British com- 
mon law and reconfirmed the consensual basis for citizenship. The Amendment was 
craft;ed in such a way that if a person was granted federal citizenship, they were 
automatically a citizen of their State of residence. The intent of the Fourteenth 
Amendment was to grant citizenship for newly fi"eed slaves, and to supersede the 
Dred Scott decision which stood in violation of the common law view of citizenship. 

However, the 1866 Senate debate on the Amendment centered around the citizen- 
ship status of American Indians. During the Senate debate, Senator Howard fi"om 
Michigan stated "Indians bom within the limits of the U.S. and who maintain their 
tribal relations, are not, in the sense of the amendment, bom subject to the jurisdic- 
tion." Senator Trumbull, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, posed this ques- 
tion, "What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?' Not 
owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means." This was reaffirmed by the 
Senate Judiciary Committee in a report it issued on the status of Indian citizenship. 
The report found them not to be citizens, because they were not "under the jurisdic- 
tion of the United States" at the time the amendment was adopted. The Commit- 
tee's opinion was that "the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution has no effect 
whatever upon the status of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United 

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment states that "The Congress shall have the 
power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Congress 
has employed tlus Constitutional power by enacting legislation which clarified the 
citizenship status of American Indians. After passage of the Fourteenth Amend- 
ment, Congress issued the "Act of July 15, 1870," in which a Winnebago Indian from 
Minnesota was permitted to apply for citizenship, with the condition that the Indian 
cease to be a member of the tribe, and his land be subject to taxation. The "Indian 
Territory Naturalization Act" of May 2, 1890 broadened the earlier act by allowing 
any member of any Indian tribe or nation residing in Indian Territory to apply for 
citizenship. From 1854 until 1924, citizenship was a common government incentive 
to encourage the assimilation of Indians. Congress' authority to naturalize Indians 
has been sustained by the courts in the cases of Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 and United 
States V. Celestine in 1909. 

Indians were perceived to owe allegiance to their tribe, and were therefore, not 
under the "obedience" of the United States. Indians could only be granted U. S. citi- 
zenship by an act of Congress in which they had to renounce their allegiance to 
their tribe. Today, those that are in the United States illegally are clearly not "sub- 
ject to the jurisdiction thereof" or rather obeying the federal government, as illus- 


trated by the fact that they have chosen to violate our immigration laws. If illegal 
aliens have babies on U.S. soil they, according to precedent, must demonstrate obe- 
dience to our laws. This, as the historical record has demonstrated repeatedly, in 
cases involving Indians, can be achieved only through acts of Congress. Indians 
were not considered automatic citizens; by the same logic, therefore, children of ille- 
gal aliens should not receive automatic citizenship. 

There have been a number of notable cotut rulings addressing the issue of citizen- 
ship. A federal district court in Oregon ruled in the 1871 case of McKay v. Campbell 
that the Fourteenth Amendment was merely declaratory of the common-law nile of 
citizenship. The case involved a plaintiff whose father was a British subject and 
whose mother was a Chinook Indian. It was ruled by the Court that Indians bom 
in tribal allegiance were not bom in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. 
The Court ruled that "to be a citizen of the U.S. by reason of his birth, a person 
must not only be bom within its territorial limits, but he also must be bom subject 
to its jurisdiction — that is, in its power and obedience". Under the obedience means 
that they are obeying U.S. laws. If someone enters the U.S. illegally, they are violat- 
ing U.S. laws. This basic disobedience of U.S. inunigration law, negates the illegal 
alien as being "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." 

The court also ruled that it is the exclusive right of Congress to grant citizenship. 
The plaintiff was not "bom a citizen of the United States, and can only become one 
by complying with the laws for the natvirahzation of aliens * * * But that is a mat- 
ter within the exclusive cognizance of Congress". Under this precedent. Congress 
may act on the granting or narrowing of U. S. citizenship. 

The findings of McKay v. Campbell were upheld in 1884 by the Supreme Court 
case of Elk v. Wilkins. Here the Court held that an Indian living in the city of 
Omaha, apart from his tribe, was not a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. 
The Court relied on the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement that a citizen be bom 
"subject to the jurisdiction" which it foimd not to apply to Mr. Elk, because he was 
bom vmder tribal authority. 

The Court ruled, and I quote, "the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof em- 
braced only those who were subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, 
which could not be properly said of Indians in tribal relations. But it was distinctly 
announced by the friends of the amendment that they intended to include in the 
granting of national citizenship to Indians who were within the jurisdiction of the 
States, and subject to their laws, because such Indians would be completely under 
the jurisdiction of the United States." In its opinion, the Court quoted Senator 
Trumbull from the original Senate debate of the Fourteenth Amendment as saying, 
"It is only those who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our 
laws, that we think of making citizens." 

Supreme Court Justice Cooley in the Elk v. Wilkins case, referred to the definition 
of national citizenship as contained in the Fourteenth Amendment, saying that "By 
the express terms of the amendment, persons of foreign birth, who have never re- 
nounced the allegiance to which they were bom, though they may have residence 
in this country, more or less permanent, for business, instruction, or pleasure, are 
not citizens." He went on to say that Indians are " 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the 
United States only in a much qualified sense; and it would be obviously inconsistent 
with the semi-independent character of such a tribe, and with the obedience they 
are expected to render to their tribal head, that they should be vested with the com- 
plete rights — or, on the other hand, subjected to the full responsibilities — of Amer- 
ican citizens." 

In the case of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the plaintiff, Mr. Ark was bom 
in San Francisco in 1873. His parents were legal immigrants from China and were 
"domiciled residents of the United States." The Court held that Mr. Ark was a citi- 
zen of the United States even though his parents owed allegiance to the Emperor 
of China. 

This case was based upon the fundamental principle of the British common law. 
Supreme Court Justice Gray, discussed this principle in the Court's opinion, that 
"the children, bom within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien 
enemies, bom during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's domin- 
ions, were not natural-bom subjects, because [they were] not bom within the alle- 
giance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day within the juris- 
diction of the king." The Wong Kim Ark case was consistent in this regard with 
British common-law. 

However, the major distinction with this case was that Wong Kim Ark's parents 
had come to America legally. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the case of 
a child of someone who had come to America illegally. It has only ruled on the nar- 
row factual case of children of legal immigrants. 


The above mentioned is the historical context; in the present, there is the very 
tangible question of cost to local counties and States that bear the brunt of the bur- 
den of caring for the children of illegal aliens. The nearly 96,000 babies who were 
bom to undocumented women covered by the Medi-Cal program in 1992 represented 
an 85 percent increase over three years. In 1992 alone, the cost to California tax- 
payers was more than $230 million in medical bills. In my county of San Diego, the 
county estimates that the total cost for undocumented immigrants from 1992 to 
1993 was over $64 million. These are costs that counties and States just simply can- 
not afford, especially when a large percentage of these costs are incurred outside 
the parameters of any true basis of law or Supreme Coiu-t ruling. 

Let me be clear in one essential point. I do not blame young mothers for wanting 
the best health care possible for themselves and their babies, or to give their chil- 
dren the option of a better life in America. It is by no fault of their own that the 
United States' failed immigration policies have resulted in their being encouraged 
to come into this country illegally. However, their plight or predicament does not 
give them a free pass to circumvent those who are trying to work within the system 
to come to America legally. By the same token, it is also not the fault nor the re- 
sponsibility of the American taxpayer, who is paying for these costs through less 
benefits and higher taxes. 

Although a number of my colleagues advocate a constitutional amendment to cor- 
rect this interpretation of the law, it is my view that this would be superfluous. The 
fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue, coupled with the dif- 
ficulty of passing an amendment to the Constitution, gives strength to my argument 
of implementing this change statutorily. The Congress has demonstrated its author- 
ity to act under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment by granting citizenship to 
American Indians. The Congress' elected status and our position as co-equ£d 
branches of government, gives our actions great weight in the Supreme Court. 
Therefore, it is under Congress' purview to define more clearly the intention of the 
framers of the Fourteenth Amendment as to who is and who is not a citizen of the 
United States. We should exercise this purview by amending the Immigration and 
Naturalization Act. Should this be found to unconstitutional, then, and only then 
would a Constitutional amendment be necessary. However, until such time, it is 
clearly and completely within the authority of the Congress of the United States to 
further define citizenship laws of our great country. 

Again, I would like to thank you. Chairman Simpson and Members of the Sub- 
committee for allowing me the opportunity to submit this testimony on birthright 
citizenship and I look forward to taking up this issue in the 105th Congress. 

Senator Simpson. Now, we have our witnesses. Panel one, John 
Fonte, a visiting scholar of the American Enterprise Institute; Law- 
rence Harrison, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech- 
nology; and Douglas Klusmeyer, editor of the Stanford Humanities 

If you would each take the time, as expressed — and this is not 
an investigative hearing, this is a learning hearing, so, please. In 
that order, please. 



Mr. FONTE. Thank you. Senator Simpson, and Senator Kennedy. 

I will touch on three main points, the problem — the crisis of citi- 
zenship, what core principles should we enunciate, what should be 
ideal, and three, how these core principles relate to the policy is- 

Today, we face a crisis of citizenship. Until recently, it was 
widely believed that individual citizenship was central to American 
liberal democracy. Traditionally, membership in our democratic re- 


public is based on the rights and responsibihties of individual citi- 
zens who are equal under the law, and together form a self-govern- 
ing free people. 

Well, during the past few decades, many of us have listened to 
a different voice. It has affected our principles of citizenship and 
our naturalization policies. 

This voice tells us that what matters most is not an individual 
citizen, but one's race, ethnicity, gender, or birth language. What 
matters is the group that one is bom into, not the group that one 
freely chooses. What matters is not the individual American citizen 
operating through voluntary associations, but distinct races, peo- 
ples, ethnic groups with their own values, worldviews, histories, 
heritages, and languages, that often require different legal rights 
and different educational programs. Even the national history 
standards refer to the American "peoples," rather than the Amer- 
ican people. 

Not surprisingly, these cultural changes have affected the way 
we deal with immigrants. In the past our goal was clear — Ameri- 
canization. Today, many oppose this ideal and favor some form of 
what is called multiculturalism. As a result, we are confusing the 
newcomers to our shores. It is not their fault; it is our fault. We 
should return to the core principles of constitutional liberal democ- 
racy. Citizenship means full membership in the American demo- 
cratic republic. 

Naturalization should serve the national interest. Our goal 
should be Americanization, stated clearly, without apology, and 
without embarrassment. Those of us in the private sector should 
probably start a national organization that would promote the con- 
cept of Americanization as the late Barbara Jordan, and others, on 
both sides of the immigration debate have suggested. 

Americanization does not mean giving up all ethnic traditions, 
customs, cuisine, and birth languages. It means patriotic assimila- 
tion. This occurs when a newcomer essentially adopts American 
civic values and the American heritage. 

For example, American philosophy Sidney Hook, son of Jewish 
immigrants from the czar's empire in the early 20th century, de- 
scribes his school days as identification with 18th and 19th century 
Americans. He adopted Washington and Lincoln as his own. The 
fact that they were Anglo-Saxon Protestants had nothing to do 
with it. They were his ancestors, too. 

Today, the multiculturalists tell us that Americans of Hispanic, 
African, and Asian descent could not possibly relate to dead white 
European males Uke Washington and Lincoln. 

However, Professor Lawrence Fuchs described Japanese Amer- 
ican students in Hawaii in the 1930's, speaking about "our Pilgrim 
forefathers." This is perhaps ironic, but in a larger sense it is true. 
The Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers are all our ancestors, re- 
gardless of when our families came to America or where we came 

How this relates to the direct policy issues and the question of 
current naturalization requirements concerning English language 
ability and the understanding of U.S. history and Government, 
should they be increased or decreased? Well, they certainly should 
not be decreased. The current tests are not difficult. 


They consist of two sets of 20 multiple choice questions. Where 
is the Nation's capital? Who was the first President of the United 
States? How many States are in the union? Then you have two dic- 
tated English sentences. 

The most commonly asked sentence is: "The American flag is red, 
white, and blue." This is written out, and could be misspelled. 
These are not difficult tests. You have to get 60 percent right. If 
you fail, you can take it again. 

It is not in the national interest to water down the current test. 
Strengthening the requirements actually would make much more — 
with substantive questions, say, about American values, self-Gov- 
emment, limited Government, would make more sense. 

If our principal objective in giving naturalization tests is to pre- 
pare newcomers for responsible and active citizenship in our liberal 
democracy, then we should take these tests seriously. 

There is one problem. One of the current provisions I think is the 
50/20 rule. If someone has been here 20 years, is over 50 years old, 
they do not have to take a language test in English. 

So if someone comes to the United States at the age of 31, 20 
years later they decide to become an American citizen at 51 — this 
is not real old — then they do not have to take this test in English. 
The test, as we can see, is not that difficult anyway. 

What this does, essentially, is it handicaps the new citizen, if we 
are suggesting to this person that it is not important to learn Eng- 
lish. Because if they are unable to freely understand English, they 
are unable to participate in our civic life. So it is a loss both to the 
new citizen and to the Nation. So we should change that require- 
ment, I believe. 

During the last several years, the INS has, in many cases, I 
think 20 percent, subcontracted the testing process to outside orga- 
nizations. This has been problematic. An INS veteran, Mike Miller, 
is quoted as saying the "surrender of testing to interest groups was 
the wrong step." People with special interests are gnawing at the 
rules, not really caring about the integrity of the system. 

Many of the outside groups that are administering the tests or 
working closely with the INS on regulations are the same organiza- 
tions that reject Americanization, work hard at obliterating all dis- 
tinctions between citizens and noncitizens, and promote multicul- 
tural separatism. 

We should be very careful about outside organization involve- 
ment in the naturalization process, and perhaps return to the pre- 
1991 idea where the INS gave the tests. 

Now let me give you one example of some of the attitudes of 
some of the outside groups toward the learning of English. 

One of the executive directors of one of the groups is quoted as 
saying, these people taking the test — been here 20 years — have 
been here for a million years. Why should they have to take the 
test in English? Well, the answer is obviously. They should learn 
English in order so they can be responsible and active citizens. 

This is good for new citizens and good for the country. 

The comments by the executive director of this outside group 
suggests that this group is not serious about preparing candidates 
for citizenship, and in fact the group is essentially cheating the 
newcomers by downplaying the importance of EngUsh. 


What about the question of naturaHzation requires the transfer 
of full political allegiance to the United States, and thus a renunci- 
ation of all foreign allegiances? 

The answer to that question, on principle, is yes. This proposition 
is at the heart of our constitutional Uberal democracy. Without this 
transfer of allegiance, democratic citizenship is devalued, and the 
meaning of self-Govemment becomes confused. 

If new citizens of the United States retain their old allegiance, 
with all that entails — political allegiance, voting, military service — 
the active, responsible civic participation that the long-term health 
our democratic republic requires is highly unlikely. 

Is it possible to be an active engaged citizen in two different sys- 
tems, in two different polities? Is it consistent with our political 
traditions? Is it desirable? Common sense suggests we answer 
these questions in the negative. 

So as a principle, dual nationality raises philosophically incon- 
sistent themes for liberal democracy, although there may be some 
historical and personal circumstances where it makes sense. 

As a practice, it has, to date, been relatively limited and there- 
fore, not a major problem for our liberal democratic citizenship. As 
a general rule, however, we should limit this practice and not ex- 
pand upon it. 

I have some thoughts on the Mexican dual nationaUty law. This 
would be a major expansion of dual nationality, and maybe during 
the question period I could go into that at some length. I do not 
think it is a good idea because it is a major expansion of the con- 
cept of dual nationality. 

For those of us who advocate the strengthening of American citi- 
zenship, one of the most damaging trends over the past several 
decades has been the blurring of all distinctions between citizens 
and legal residents who are not citizens. 

Blurring the differences weakens the significance of the rights 
and responsibilities of citizenship which is the foundation of our 
liberal democratic polity. 

One of the top officials at the INS, under the current administra- 
tion, several years ago, while he was a university professor, wrote 
a paper for the Ford Foundation, recommending that noncitizens be 
allowed to vote in local elections. 

Well, citizenship is cheapened and devalued when this occurs. 

It is best if the differences between citizens and noncitizens are 
decided by the Congress, the elected representatives of the people, 
not by the courts, as has happened too often in the last several dec- 

Certainly, there should be differences between citizens and non- 
citizens. For example, the right to petition for relatives to immi- 
grate to the United States should be reserved for American citi- 

Such changes as occur through these petitions effect our social 
and immigration policies, and therefore are better made by citizens 
whose voices should be given greater weight in the formation of 
public policy in a liberal democracy than by those residents who do 
not have the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. 


At the end of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in 
1789, Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of Government did 
you create? And Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." 

Well, if we continue on our present path, if we continue to blur 
distinctions between citizens and noncitizens, if we continue to de- 
value and cheapen our naturalization process, if we continue the 
cattle herd approach to naturalization, if we abandon the oath of 
allegiance for new citizens, if we believe that new citizens should 
not transfer full political allegiance to our country, if we believe 
that race, ethnicity, and birth language are more important than 
individual citizenship, if we continue to promote political 
multiculturalism and reject Americanization, then we will not keep 
the Republic that Franklin and the other Founding Fathers be- 
queathed to us more than 200 years ago. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fonte follows:] 

Prepared Statement of John Fonte 

Thank you Senator Simpson, it is an honor to be here. I have had a long interest 
in citizenship education and this past year I had the privilege of serving on the 
Steering Committee of the Congressionally-mandated National Assessment for Edu- 
cation Progress (NAEP), sometimes called the "nation's report card," for Civics and 

Today we face a crisis of citizenship. This crisis is the result of a failure of will. 
It is a failure of our political and ctiltural leadership in both the public and private 
sector. Essentially, it is a failure to affirm our core principles and to enact citizen- 
ship naturalization policies in accordance with those principles. 

I will focus on three main points: (1) the problem, the crisis of citizenship and 
naturalization; (2) the need to affirm core principles concerning citizenship and nat- 
uralization; and (3) the major policy issues that would emanate from these core 

(1) The Problem: the crisis of citizenship 

Until recently it was widely believed among both elite and popular opinion that 
individual citizenship was central to American liberal democracy. Traditionally 
membership in our democratic republic is based on the rights and responsibilities 
of individual citizens who are equal under the law and together form a self-govern- 
ing free people. Ideally, these individual citizens establish voluntary groups to ac- 
complish civic aims. 

During the past few decades many of us have listened to a different voice and 
it has aSfected oiu- principles of citizenship and our naturalization policies. This 
voice tells us that what matters most is not the individual citizen but one's race, 
ethnicity, gender, or birth language. What matters is the group that one is bom into 
not the group that one freely joins. What matters is not the individual American 
citizen operating through voliuitary associations, but distinct races, peoples, ethnic 
groups, cultvu-aJ blocs with their own values, world views, histories, heritages, and 
languages that often require different legal rights and education programs. In fact, 
the national history standards, that were endorsed by most major educationsd orga- 
nizations, referred to the American "peoples" instead of the American people. 

Not siuprisingly, these cultural changes have affected the way we deal with immi- 
grants. In the past our goal was clear — ^Americanization. Today, many oppose this 
ideal and favor some form of what is called multiculturalism. As a result, we are 
confusing the newcomers to our shores. It is not their fault, it is our fault. We are 
not clear about what it is that we expect. 

(2) Principles 

What should oiu- principles of citizenship naturalization consist of? What is the 
ideal? We should retvun to the cor6 principles of our constitutional liberal democ- 
racy. Citizenship means full membership in the American democratic republic. Nat- 
uralization should serve the national interest. Our goal should be Americanization 
stated clearly without apology and without embarrassment. Those of us in the pri- 
vate sector should probably start a national organization that would promote the 
concept of Americanization as the late Barbara Jordan and others on both sides of 
immigration issue have suggested. 


Let us define Americanization. First of all Americanization does not mean giving 
up all ethnic traditions, customs, cuisine, and birth languages. Multiethnicity, at 
some level, has always been part of American life. Americanization means patriotic 
assimilation. This occurs when a newcomer essentially adopts American civic values 
and the American heritage as his or her own. This occiu"s, for example, when they 
begin to think of American history as "our" history not "their" history. The Amer- 
ican philosopher Sidney Hook, son of Jewish immigrants from the Czar's empire in 
the early 20th century, describes his school days as identification with 18th and 
19th century Americans — he adopted Washington and Lincoln as his own — the fact 
that they were Anglo-Saxon Protestants had nothing to do with it — they were his 
ancestors too. 

Today the mulitculturalists tell us that young Americans of Hispanic, African, and 
Asian descent could not possibly relate to dead white Evu-opean males like Washing- 
ton and Lincoln. I am remindea of the writing of my fellow panelist Professor Fuchs, 
who described Japanese American students in Hawaii speaking about "our Pilgrim 
forefathers." This is perhaps ironic, but in a larger sense it is true — the Pilgrims 
and the Founding Fathers are oiu- ancestors regardless of when our families came 
to America or where we came from. This is what the concept of patriotic assimila- 
tion means. What is sometimes described as assimilation into American life often 
means absorption of popular cultiu-e, the culture of American television, McDonalds, 
the mall, and the like. This is not patriotic assimilation, interest in American popu- 
lar culture occurs everywhere in the world and has nothing to do with our civic val- 
ues and political allegiance to the United States. 

(3) Policies 

We were presented with a list of issues to be considered as we examined natu- 
ralization requirements and the rights and privileges of citizenship. Let me proceed 
and review these issues. 

Ciurent naturalization reqmrements concerning the required level of English lan- 
guage ability and knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government 
should be — under no circumstances — decreased. The current test requirements are 
not difficvdt. They consist of two sets of 20 multiple choice questions (Where is the 
nations's capitol? Who was the first president? How many States in the union?) and 
two dictated English sentences (One of the most commonly asked sentences is "The 
American flag is red white, and blue"). Candidates are required to answer only one 
set of the questions and get 60% of them right and they are supposed to "satisfac- 
torily complete" at least one of the sentences (misspellings such as "Amerucan" are 
fine, one still passes). If a candidate fails they can take the same basic test again. 

There is overwhelming evidence that even the current, relatively easy, naturaliza- 
tion requirements in English language ability and knowledge of American history 
and government have not been followed. A series of newspaper articles in the Wash- 
ington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, and the 
Washington Times; syndicated coliminist Georgie Anne Geyers's new book Ameri- 
cans No More: The Death of Citizenship, the result of four years of research; ABC 
News investigative reports and several hearings in both the House and the Senate 
have revealed the dumbing down and devaluation of naturalization requirements. 
According to INS officials, organizations contracted by the INS to run the natu- 
ralization process have ignored English language requirements, given test answers 
in advance, and promoted cheating. 

It is not in the national interest to water down the cxurent test requirements, 
strengthening the requirements with more substantive questions on core American 
values such as self-govermment or limited government would make more sense. If 
our principal objective in giving the naturalization tests is to prepare newcomers for 
responsible and active citizenship in our Uberal democracy then we must take the 
tests seriously. 

In the same vein, the current provision that a candidate who is over fifty years 
old and has been in the country more than twenty years is excused from the EngUsh 
language examination does not make sense. A twenty year resident of the United 
States who is, say, 51 years old and wants to become a citizen should learn English 
both for his or her own sake and the country's. Without adequate knowledge of Eng- 
lish this new citizen would be handicapped in the sense of not being able to fully 
understand and participate in our civic life. This would be a loss, both to the new 
citizen and to ovtr nation. 

For the last several years the INS has, in some cases, subcontracted the testing 
process to outside organizations. As we have seen from the newspaper and television 
accounts, the congressional hearings, testimony from INS civil servants, and the in- 
vestigative research by Georgie Amie Geyer and others, the results have been prob- 
lematic. Thirty-six year INS employee Richard "Mike" Miller is quoted as saying the 


"surrender of testing to interest groups * * * was the wrong step." He states, "peo- 
ple with special interests [are] gnawing at the rules * * * not really caring about 
the integrity of the system." Miller declares that there was a problem because some 
of the outside groups administering the tests "not only read the questions, but the 
answers. Like, "Who is buried in Grant's tomb." 

Many of the outside groups that are either administering the tests or working 
closely with the INS in establishing the rules and regulations of natxiralization re- 
quirements are the same organizations that reject Americanization, work hard to 
obliterate all distinctions between citizens and non-citizens, promote multicultural 
separatism, cultural relativism and in some cases, irredentism. The material pro- 
vided to us by the Committee staff suggested that in examining whether Congress 
should naturalization requirements we consider the conditions that "make likely the 
development of emotional ties to America, political allegiance, assimilation of Amer- 
ican political values." If we are serious about these issues, then we should be very 
careful about outside organizational involvement in the naturalization process. 

Let me give you one specific example of a problem. The attitude of some of the 
outside groups that give the naturalization tests towards the importance of learning 
English for American citizenship is reflected in the comments of an executive direc- 
tor of one of these groups. The executive director said, "many of these people (resi- 
dent aliens over fifty years old applying for citizenship) have been here a million 
years. The/re older in age. Why shoiild they have to take the test in English?" Well, 
the obvious answer is they should learn English in order that they can become re- 
sponsible and active citizens, this is good for the new citizens and good for the coun- 
try. The comments by the executive director of this outside group suggests that his 
group is not serious about preparing candidates for citizenship. In fact, the group 
is essentially cheating the newcomers by downplaying the importance of English. 
Knowledge of English is essential to full participation in our society. To tell new- 
comers to America otherwise is to lie to them. 

The Committee asked us to consider the question: Should naturalization require 
the transfer of full political allegiance to the United States and thus renunciation 
of all foreign allegiances? The answer to that question on principle is yes. This prop- 
osition is at the heart of our constitutional liberal democracy. This is why we ask 
new citizens to take an oath that swears full allegiance to the U.S. and renounces 
all previous political allegiances. The United States is a self-governing polity, a con- 
stitutional republic. Citizenship naturalization means full membership in our self- 
governing polity — in our democratic republic. NaturaUzation, in the best sense, has 
never meant that new citizens should not retain affection for the "old country" or 
continue certain traditional habits and customs, but it has always meant that the 
newcomers political allegiance has been transferred from the birth country to the 
United States of America. Without this transfer of allegiance democratic citizenship 
is devalued and the meaning self-government becomes confused. Some have sug- 
gested changing or eliminating the patriotic Oath of Allegiance that the new citizens 
take. We should keep the Oath as it is and take it seriously. 

An American citizen has particular rights, such as the right to vote, and particu- 
lar responsibilities, such as the responsibilities to support and defend the Constitu- 
tion and laws of United States and to serve in the armed forces and on juries when 
required by law. If new citizens of the United States retain their old citizenship 
with all that entails (poUtical allegiance, voting, military service) the active, respon- 
sible citizen participation that the long term health our democratic republic requires 
is highly unlikely. Is it possible to be an active engaged citizen in two different 
polities? Is it consistent with our political tradition? Is it desirable? Common sense 
suggests we answer these questions in the negative. 

As a principle, dual nationahty raises philosophically inconsistent themes for lib- 
eral democracy, although there may be historical or personal circumstances where 
it makes sense. As a practice it has, to date, been relatively limited and therefore 
not a major problem for our liberal democratic citizenship. As a general rule we 
should limit and not expand upon this practice. 

There is discussion of Mexico enacting a "dual nationality" law vmder which Mexi- 
cans who have been naturahzed as American citizens would retain their Mexican 
nationality and the right to a Mexican passport. From the perspective of American 
liberal democratic thought such a law would be philosophically inconsistent with our 
concept of citizenship. As a policy issue, a Mexican dual nationahty initiative would 
not be in the national interest of the United States. This would constitute a major 
expansion of the dual nationality concept. 

Our situation with Mexico is historically unique. We share a long contiguous bor- 
der with Mexico. Large numbers of Mexican nationals reside in the United States. 
Mexican government officials have declared openly that they consider American citi- 
zens of Mexican descent as "our compatriots in the United States" requiring their 


special protection. Mexican consulates in California have interfered in the referen- 
dum over proportion 187. Mexican elites (for example, educators) still harbor 
irredentist attitudes. All of these factors suggest that the United States should not 
recognize the validity of any dual nationality proposal by the Mexican government. 
If this comes to pass, the U.S. should insist on our new citizens renouncing Mexican 
nationality and giving up their Mexican passports. 

For those of us who advocate the strengthening of American citizenship, one of 
the most damaging trends over the past several decades has been the blurring of 
all distinctions between citizens and leggd residents who are not citizens. Blurring 
the differences weakens the significance of the rights and responsibiUties of citizen- 
ship which is the foimdation of our Uberal democracy polity. One of the top officials 
at the INS under the current administration, several years ago, while he was a uni- 
versity professor, wrote a paper for the Ford Foundation recommending that non- 
citizens be allowed to vote in local elections. Citizenship is cheapened and devalued 
when this occurs, as it has in some localities. 

It is best if differences between citizens and non-citizens are decided by the Con- 
gress — the elected representatives of the people — not the covuts as has happened too 
often dviring the last several decades. There certainly could be differences between 
citizens and non-citizens in the non-poUtical as well as the political realm (right to 
vote, hold office, government employment). For example, the right to petition for rel- 
atives to immigrate to the United States should be reserved for American citizens. 
Such changes as occur through these petitions effect social and immigration policies 
and therefore are better made by citizens — whose voices should be given greater 
weight in the formation of pubUc poUcy in a democracy than by those residents who 
do not have the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. 

At the end of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1789, Benjamin 
Franklin was asked what kind of government did you create? And he replied a Re- 
public if you can keep it. If we continue on our present path. If we continue to blur 
distinctions between citizens and non-citizen, if we continue to devalue and cheapen 
our naturalization process, if we continue the cattle herd approach to naturalization, 
if we abandon the oath of allegiance for new citizens, if we believe that new citizens 
should not transfer full political allegiance to our country, if we beUeve that race, 
ethnicity, and birth language are more important than individual citizenship, if we 
continue to promote political multiculturalism and reject Americanization — then we 
will not keep the republic that Franklin and the other Founding Fathers bequeathed 
to us more than two hundred years ago. Thank you . 

Senator Simpson. Thank you very much, Mr. Fonte. 
And now, Professor Harrison, please. 


Mr, Harrison. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be focusing my com- 
ments on the cultural dimensions of citizenship. 

I believe that citizenship embraces values that go beyond con- 
stitutional principles. Beyond this, as Alexis de Toqueville would 
have argued, if you do not have values and attitudes that are con- 
genial to constitutions, democracy, freedom, the constitutions and 
the democracy and the freedom are not going to work. 

The successful countries of the world, be they in Western Europe, 
North America, East Asia, Australia, New Zealand, all share, in 
varying degrees, a set of values that are engines of progress, and 
these values, in the case of the United States, are central to our 
traditions, central to our success as a political, as an economic, and 
as a social entity. 

The progressive societies look to the future. They believe that 
progress is possible, and that it is within the reach of human 
beings and human societies. The progressive societies attach a high 
value to work as the engine of human progress, as the structure 
of our daily lives. 

Education in these societies receives a high value. Education also 
becomes a vehicle to hiunan progress and social progress. 


In these societies, merit is the principal determinant of how hu- 
mans get ahead in the world. In these societies, the identification 
of people extends beyond the family, beyond the clan, beyond the 
ethnic group, to other people in the society. 

In these societies, fair play is a palpable, tangible idea that gov- 
erns the way people conduct themselves in their businesses, in 
Government, in their personal lives. 

I am not sa3dng that any of these are uniform, or that people al- 
ways behave according to them. But they are sufficiently prominent 
in the cultures, that combined with the democratic constitutions, 
they have served to promote the progress which we have experi- 
enced in our own country. 

My background is in Latin America, principally. I directed 
USAJD missions in five Latin American countries between 1965 
and 1981. 

The values that I have just mentioned importantly explain Latin 
America's authoritarian history, its history of slow economic 
growth, its history of extreme social injustice. 

In Latin America, the tradition has been a focus not on the fu- 
ture, not on progress, but on the present, or on the past. 

Work has traditionally been seen as a necessary evil, importantly 
informed by the slavery experience. Education is something which 
has been made available to the elite. The masses have been denied 
educational opportunity. Merit plays a relatively unimportant role 
in how people get ahead. Connections, family, are much more im- 

A sense of community extends to the edge of the family. What 
is beyond the family is often of little importance, and possibly even 
hostile. The idea of fair play is not well-developed. 

These are my views, that are bom of three decades of work in 
these fields, both as a director of Missions of the U.S. Government, 
and as a scholar at Harvard University and at MIT. 

Until recent years, the traditional explanation of Latin America's 
problems was exploitation by the United States. Dependency. But 
that has changed dramatically in the last decade, and today, the 
view of Latin American culture that I have just projected to you is 
shared by a growing number of prominent Latin Americans. 

That includes the writer, Mario Vargos Llosa. The Cuban exile 
columnist and politician, Carlos Alberto Montanar, who is one of 
the co-authors of the runaway best-seller book in Latin America 
these days, entitled, "The Perfect Latin American Idiots Manual." 

It is the view of Mariana Grondona, who is the host of the most 
popular television talk-show, public affairs talk-show in Argentina. 

It is the view of Hernando de Soto, the authority of "The Other 
Path," which has made such a profound impact all around the 

It is the view of the Jesuit, Luis Huegalday, who is the rector 
of the Catholic University in Caracas, Venezuela. 

I want to stress that values and attitudes are learned, this has 
got nothing to do with genes, and these and other Latin Americans 
recognize that, and recognize that the future of Latin America de- 
pends on the reinforcement of the positive values which have 
served us, and other advanced countries so well. 


The implications of this for the subject we are addressing today 
are profound. On October 13, an article appeared in The New York 
Times with the headline, "For Hispanic Poor There Is No Silver 
Lining." And the very disconcerting point of the article is that the 
proportion of Hispanics in the United States below the poverty line 
has increased to the point where it has passed the proportion of 
American black citizens below the poverty line. 

That proportion, by the way, is declining. 

This, as well as the recent report of the Rand Corporation, which 
analyzes the 1990 Census data, particularly in California, and con- 
cludes that the achievement, or the assimilation, or acculturation 
of unskilled, uneducated immigrants from Latin America is dis- 
concertingly low, further evidence that the melting pot is not work- 
ing for these immigrants. Suggests that the kinds of problems that 
lie behind Latin America's history of authoritarianism, of slow eco- 
nomic growth, and of social injustice, are having their repercus- 
sions in the enormous immigrant flow from Latin America. 

I want to close, then, with three general observations that are 
relevant to the three issues that we are addressing here. 

First of all, the English language is an indispensable element of 
acculturation. Language is the conduit of culture. If you do not 
master the language, it is very difficult to absorb the culture. 

Second of all, with respect to citizenship, if there is a question 
of how much time should be involved, more time is better than less 

And finally, the capacity of the melting pot to absorb, to accultur- 
ate, to assimilate, should be one of the principal factors that deter- 
mines the level of immigration. 

Thank you. 

Senator SiMPSON. Thank you very much. 

Now, Douglas Klusmeyer, please. 


Mr. Klusmeyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to focus my comments on the issue of dual citizen- 

At the core of the American ideal of citizenship is the principle 
of consent. American citizens are bound together by a shared alle- 
giance to a common political creed, a creed handed down to us by 
the framers of our Constitution and our Declaration of Independ- 

To share this common allegiance means that we choose to accept 
the American political creed as binding on all of us. In other words, 
we consent as American citizens to respect the common political 
creed upon which this Republic is founded. 

For immigrants, who seek to become American citizens, the most 
significant aspect of the act of naturalization is swearing allegiance 
to this common political creed. By swearing this oath of allegiance, 
immigrants are expressing their consent to respect the principles 
of this political creed. 

The allegiance-based character of the American ideal of citizen- 
ship helps to explain why many find the concept of dual citizenship 
so troublesome. How, after all, can citizens respect their sworn 
commitment to allegiance to more than one State? 


But after reviewing the arguments against dual citizenship, I 
will argue that we should look upon it as less a threat to the soli- 
darity of the American citizenry and more as a necessary and pru- 
dent accommodation to the realities of an increasingly mobile 

Because dual citizenship raises potential conflicts in an individ- 
ual's loyalties and discharge of duties to different States. Many 
States around the globe, though with many exceptions, have op- 
posed allowing citizens to hold dual citizenship. Nevertheless, the 
incidence of dual citizenship has steadily grown in the 20th cen- 
tury, and States have done Httle, substantively, to discourage this 

Opponents of dual citizenship argue that the relationship be- 
tween the citizen and the sovereign presupposes an exclusive alle- 
giance to one State. A State's conferral of citizenship gives an indi- 
vidual the benefits of rights and protections in exchange for which 
the citizen owes the State his or her undivided loyalty. Along with 
rights come correlative duties, the most important of which is the 
obligation to perform military service. 

Dual citizenship provides an individual with a means to evade 
mihtary service and raises doubts about such a person's loyalties 
during war-time, especially if the conflict occurs between the States 
to which a dual citizen owes loyalty. 

Dual citizens can also cause diplomatic problems between States, 
who can both claim the individuals as subjects, and make conflict- 
ing demands upon them. But most of these problems can be effec- 
tively resolved through international agreements and bilateral 

We can all easily imagine all sorts of hypothetical problems that 
dual citizenship can pose, but it's far more difficult to find any sig- 
nificant evidence to support such h)rpotheses. 

Where are the empirical studies that document the negative ef- 
fects of tolerating dual citizen on the loyalties of their bearers? 

Where is the evidence that shows that dual citizens have proven 
less loyal to their American allegiance than citizens with only one 

The conflicting rights and duties problem that dual citizenship 
raises can also be addressed to an active/passive concept of citizen- 
ship. Active rights, such as voting, and active duties, such as mili- 
tary service and taxation, could be linked to residence require- 
ments or some kind of close connection test. 

The most important passive right of citizenship would be the 
right of return, but might also include special protections governing 
property and inheritance interests. 

Technical arguments against dual citizenship are, more often 
than not, read herrings. The modem trend into law and in State 
practice has been to acknowledge that in toda/s mobile word, the 
phenomenon of dual citizenship is simply going to increase, and an 
increasing number of States have been willing to recognize dual 

Objections to dual citizenship are usually rooted in deeper 
sources that technical arguments can obscure. One of these sources 
is the equation of Nation and State. The presence of large nimibers 


of dual citizens seems to violate this equation and raise fears that 
they will serve as a dangerous "fifth column." 

Such fears can be legitimate as the example of Hitler's manipula- 
tion of the German minority in Czechoslovakia amply dem- 
onstrates, but this example also suggests that the legal status of 
this minority as a citizenship made no difference. 

Hitler could have achieved the same results, irrespective of their 
status. Dual citizenship can provide pretexts for States to interfere 
in the domestic affairs of other States. But alternative pretexts are 
always available. 

Likewise, having sole citizenship within the State of residence 
does not always protect minorities, especially foreign-bom minori- 
ties, from suspicion of being foreign subversives and traitors. 

The imprisonment of the Japanese after the attack on Pearl Har- 
bor, and the Red Scare in the United States that followed the First 
World War demonstrate that a legal status alone will not erase 
perceptions of foreignness and difference. 

In considering the approaches of other States to the question of 
dual citizenship — and here I am thinking of Mexico and the United 
States — we must take into account how perceived national inter- 
ests are affected when the citizens of one country are migrating in 
large numbers to another. 

We should of course define our citizenship policies in accordance 
with our national interest, but part of that national interest is 
reaching accords with our neighbors. From the American perspec- 
tive, as a society populated overwhelmingly by immigrant and their 
descendants, the idea of dual citizenship seems particularly threat- 
ening because we can all trace our national origins to so many dif- 
ferent nations, and because immigrants are such a visible presence 
in our Nation. 

From the Mexican perspective, a recognition of dual citizenship 
offers a small measure of legal protection to their nations who left 
their homeland in search of jobs and other opportunities that they 
could not otherwise find. Like almost every other country that has 
experienced a massive out-migration, the Mexican Government has 
considered recognizing some form of dual citizenship for those of its 
citizens that acquire citizenship in a new land. But whether the 
Mexican Government will actually enact the necessary legislation 
to implement this goal must be left to the realm of speculation. 

I began this morning by emphasizing the consensual or volitional 
basis of the American ideal of citizenship. I want to end here by 
emphasizing another fundamental component of this ideal. 

For immigrants seeking American citizenship, the act of natu- 
ralization is not the end result or culminating point of a longer 
process which they complete their assimilation into the American 
way of life, but rather, the most important step they make in their 
transition into becoming an American, an expression of their com- 
mitment to join this way of life. 

The acquisition of American citizenship is an act that facilitates 
an immigrant's growing investment in the American way of life, 
and his or her participation in that way of life. 

The acquisition of American citizenship then is not the final 
stamp certifying the American-ness of the immigrant, but rather, 
is a key step toward becoming an American. 


It is difficult for me to see how the U.S. Government can stop 
immigrants from retaining dual citizenship if their homeland 
States provide for it, so perhaps we should look at the retention of 
dual citizenship as part of the process which helps some immi- 
grants make the transition into the American way of life. 

By not demanding that immigrants renounce their legal ties to 
their original homelands and suffer the perceived losses that may 
entail, we may encourage them to seek American citizenship earlier 
and to deepen their commitments to the American way of life. 

Thank you. 

Senator Simpson. Thank you very much. 

Let me skip around a bit. Dr. Fonte, in your written testimony 
you refer to national history standards, which you say were en- 
dorsed by "most educational organizations." You noted that these 
standards do not use the traditional term, "the American people," 
but rather, the term, "American peoples." 

Now, I think that's one remarkable example of being thoroughly 
politically correct. That is the best one I have heard recently. 

But putting the PC issue aside, what do you think such usage 
shows about the attitude of some in the educational hierarchy to- 
ward the relative importance of national identity and unity versus 
so-called diversity, and multiculturaUsm, and the ethnic or other 
group-oriented identity? 

In our last hearing, I quoted the words of one Woodrow Wilson 
and Theodore Roosevelt, which were very powerful in this area. 

Mr. FONTE. Well, I think this is indicative of the cultural argu- 
ment we are having today, that there are large elements in the 
academy, that is, the academic world, and in education, that be- 
lieve we are the American peoples, not the American people. That 
diversity is sometimes defined as meaning we are totally separate 
groups and people with separate worldviews, and separate identi- 
ties. It is an emphasis on the pluribus rather than the unum. So 
this is exactly the problem that we face when we are trying to as- 
similate, and I would use the term Americanize. Americanization 
as I mean it, meaning patriotic assimilation, and Barbara Jordan 
used it. I think it is a good term. I do not think we should shy 
away from that term. 

Meaning that people, in their heart and soul, become Americans, 
as the Japanese kids did at McKinley High School in Honolulu, 
when they talk about our Pilgrim forefathers, and they proved that 
in 1942 and 1943, when they went off to war. My relatives proved 
that in 1943. My father came to the United States from Sicily, and 
in 1943 there were many Americans of Sicilian descent who were 
invading Sicily. What if they were dual citizens of the United 
States and Italy at that time? How would that have worked? 

I totally disagree with the last speaker, who seems to want to ex- 
pand the concept of dual citizenship. 

Let me point out the partidular points, too, about the situation 
with — if Mexico suggests this. Mexico is a country we have a large 
contiguous border with. They have openly criticized what they call 
U.S. human rights violations. 

Mexican consulates have interfered in Proposition 187 in Amer- 
ican elections, and large elements of the Mexican elite Eire essen- 


tially irredentist, meaning that they still harbor resentment about 
border changes. 

What should we do? I think was one of the questions the commit- 
tee asked. Well, we should reject, we should call on people that be- 
come Americans to reject, renounce their previous citizenship, and 
that means if that is, means the case with Mexico, then they would 
renounce their previous citizenship. 

Senator Simpson. I am just intrigued. You mentioned the Japa- 
nese Americans. I am sure that the ones that ended up 13 miles 
from my house, in Cody, WY, at Hart Mountain Relocation Center, 
must have worried about their Pilgrim fathers, somewhat. Because 
there they were — 13- to 15,000 of them, American citizens. 

We did not do that to the Germans. We did not do that to the 
Italians. Another interesting tidbit of American history. 

Dr. Harrison, your research concerns the relationship between a 
nation's values and other cultural attributes, and, on the other 
hand, economic and political success. 

Does this mean that if naturalized citizens do not adopt core 
American values — democracy, freedom under law, the golden rule, 
self-reliance, individual achievement, limited Government, individ- 
ual rights, and so on — but rather, retain the philosophy or the val- 
ues, or the ideals of their homeland, ones that are inconsistent with 
American core values, then there is a risk that sometime in the fu- 
ture the United States will face the same problems that caused 
these individuals to leave their homeland, to seek a better life in 
this country, because their actions, including their choices as vot- 
ers, will reflect those same philosophies and values. 

Mr. Harrison. Yes, I agree with that, Mr. Chairman. 

We have a pattern of social evolution in Latin America that you 
can describe as pathological. If I am right and if the Latin America 
intellectual and political leaders that I mentioned are also right, 
then unless the values and attitudes that lie behind that kind of 
behavior change, then when people who are imbued with those val- 
ues and attitudes move to another society, they are going to behave 
in the political, economic, and social dimensions of their lives, simi- 
larly, and in ways that are highly inconsistent with our traditions. 

All example of this which is a cause for real concern is the ques- 
tion of education. I mentioned that in Latin America it has tradi- 
tionally — it is changing now — ^but it has traditionally, for centuries, 
been viewed as a perquisite of the elite. 

The result is that education has never received emphasis as it 
has in the more progressive societies. 

In the United States today, by far the largest high school dropout 
ethnic group is the Hispanic group, and what is particularly dis- 
concerting is that whereas the first generation typically comes in 
with very little education, and the second generation acquires a 
great deal more, in the third generation there is a decline, and all 
of these trends feeding into this phenomenon of high school dropout 
rates in the vicinity of 30 percent. That is a cause for real concern. 

Senator SiMPSON. As you discuss things like that, do you find 
that rather than arguing or debating with you, that some persons 
just refer to that as racist? 

Mr. Harrison. I have been called a racist, Senator; yes. And 


Senator SiMPSON. Yes. So have I. I have been called everything. 
I think. If they have missed any terms — and I mean any terms — 
why, I would be glad if you would put them in the suggestion box 
at the 

Senator Kennedy. Liberal Democrat? [Laughter.] 

Senator Simpson. It may be in the box. 

Senator Kennedy. You will not get that one. 

Senator SiMPSON. No, I think not. 

Mr. Harrison. I might add, if I may, that I have been called a 
Democrat sometimes, and indeed, I am. 

Senator SiMPSON. Yes. Well, I think if we called Senator Ken- 
nedy a conservative Republican, it would be the same. [Laughter.] 

One question now for Douglas Klusmeyer. 

You questioned whether dual citizenship poses any risk to a na- 
tion which permits it. We will discuss that in the second panel. You 
say there is no empirical evidence that it is a problem. We hear the 
great tales of espionage involving those with dual citizenship. 
Those are perhaps myths, perhaps not. I do not personally know 
whether conclusive evidence on that question is available or could 
be obtained, one way or the other. 

But certainly, that type of thing is not the only way that conflict- 
ing loyalties could be discerned and could be a problem in this 

Is it not reasonable to be concerned that if a voter is making a 
decision between two candidates or if a Grovemment official would 
be deciding between two courses of action, that a person with dual 
citizenship, who has formal political allegiance to another country, 
as well as to the United States, might well take that country's in- 
terest too much into account, possibly then making decisions favor- 
able to it, even when they might be harmful or inimical to the best 
interests — the national interest — of the United States? 

It seems just common sense to me to believe that the risk of that 
would be greater than if there was no such formal political alle- 
giance, with all of the legal obligations that it gives rise to. 

Mr. Klusmeyer. Well, I think conflicting loyalties is a problem, 
but it is just not clear to me that it tracks terribly closely with dual 
citizenship. People who are dual citizens have many different mo- 
tives for doing so. It may be to protect inheritance rights. It may 
be because they feel they have family in their original homelands. 

It may be that they do have a strong cultural of national identi- 
fication. If they do have a strong national identification and they 
do want to work for that national interest in the United States, it 
is not clear to me that if they do not have dual citizenship, they 
will not do it anyways. 

I also want to suggest that you sort of changed the terminology 
I used. You said that there was no conclusive evidence. Well, I 
didn't say that. I said there is no evidence. There may be some an- 
ecdotal evidence. But if you look at the recent spy scandals in this 
country, it has not been by dual citizens. It has been done by na- 
tive-bom Americans. 

I simply am aware of no empirical study that has demonstrated, 
in any country, that this is a significant problem. 

I would also suggest to you, that given the fact that States have 
been aware of the phenomenon of dual citizenship, and have been 


aware that it is a growing phenomenon throughout the 20th cen- 
tury, that if it was such a problem they would get together and do 
something about it. 

In fact you cannot find any States that have done substantive 
work to try to stop it, and, in fact, I do not think they can. 

Senator SiMPSON. I do not think I used the word conclusive. I 
used your term, empirical evidence. 

Mr. KJ.USMEYER. I am sorry if I misunderstood you. 

Senator SIMPSON. I believe that is true; but anyway, my time has 

Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just for all of the panelists, we afford different rights and re- 
sponsibiUties to citizens than we do to noncitizens. But there is no 
particular rationality in the way we decide what the rights and re- 
sponsibiUties of each will be. 

You know, some distinctions are based on poUtical rights and re- 
sponsibilities. Citizens can vote in Federal elections. Noncitizens 
cannot. Citizens serve on juries. Both citizens and noncitizens can 
serve in the military and be drafted. 

Both citizens and noncitizens must pay taxes. Some distinctions 
are related to national security concerns about undue foreign influ- 

Citizens can hold Government jobs and get security clearances to 
work for defense contractors. But listen to this. Citizens can own 
TV and radio stations. Noncitizens cannot. At the same time, non- 
citizens can own networks. 

Sony owns ABC. So the distinctions go on on constitutional and 
legal rights. 

My question is should there be distinctions, only with regard to 
political rights and responsibilities such as voting and jury duty, or 
are other distinctions, you know, such as welfare ehgibility appro- 
priate, too? 

What should be the standard, so we do not have ad hoc, or are 
you satisfied that the places where we have had ad hoc has not 
been a problem? If you are looking down the road and seeing where 
we are sort of moving and going, where do you come out? Do you 
have some guidelines for us in terms of considering this, that could 
be consistent all the way through? Or is it necessary that we do 
it? Mr. Fonte? 

Mr. FONTE. I think the main guidelines is that a citizen is a fiill 
member of the American democratic Republic, while a resident 
alien eventually becomes a full member but is not yet a full mem- 
ber. So in matters that affect the status of liberal democracy and 
in matters that affect our national interest, the guide should be the 
concept of membership. 

That at the heart of liberal democracy, the citizen is a member. 
I would disagree with one of the other paneUsts who seems to be- 
lieve that you can be a member of several different polities. I think 
that is a problem. 

But I think this is an issue for the Congress, and I think particu- 
larly for the Congress, not for the courts. 

Senator Kennedy. Well, I am accepting that. 

Mr. Fonte. Yes. 


Senator Kennedy. But I am trying to get at as to whether there 
are guidehnes, so we are not doing it ad hoc. Do you have prin- 
ciples which you think would be useful for Congress in being able 
to evaluate these various considerations? 

I mean, the idea we are going to have, where if you are not a 
citizen you cannot own a television station, but if you are not you 
can own a network. 

Mr. FONTE. Well, I think it will 

Senator Kennedy. So I mean to avoid — or is it necessary to 
avoid? I am trying to find out if there are guiding principles that 
we ought to be thinking about as we begin this debate and discus- 

Mr. FONTE. I think affecting political and social policy. Senator, 
in a — how if affects political and social policies, like the question 
of — the question was asked about petitioning for relatives. Well, 
that would affect immigration policy, so that should be a question 
for citizens. So that is the kind of guidelines that I would suggest. 

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Harrison. 

Mr. Harrison. Senator, I have not thought through this issue 
with sufficient care to really feel comfortable in saying anything on 

Senator KENNEDY. You know, I am looking for broad strokes that 
might be guidelines to us, and maybe you could give — we would 
welcome, we are going to be dealing with some of these things in 
another Congress. But if there are some broad strokes about how 
we ought to measure — or maybe we do not need to. But what hap- 
pens so often around here is that we just respond to the immediate 
kinds of elements that are portrayed, and deal with it, and then 
the policy ends up in a hodge-podge, and people wonder why it 
works in the strange ways that it does. 

Mr. Klusmeyer, do you have anjrthing to add? 

Mr. Klusmeyer. If I may just say one thing. One of the reasons 
that I have not thought my way through it is because I am not sure 
that there has been anything like a debate on what the distinction 
is that we want, as a society, to have between legal immigrants 
and naturalized citizens. 

Is it a way station to naturahzation? Is it a permanent condition 
that we tolerate? I simply have not thought through those issues 

Senator Kennedy. That is a very interesting one, because the 
German experience is quite a bit different. It takes a longer period 
of time, maybe even through generations, before it develops into 
citizenship. We move in a different way on this part. 

Let me ask the panelists this. When it comes to naturalization, 
the Constitution simply requires Congress to establish uniform 
rules of naturalization. Prior to that time, each State set its own 
naturalization rules. Very interesting. I should have known it, but 
I did not. 

In the early years of history. Congress passed a number of natu- 
ralization laws, with the first Congress, in 1790, and again, in 
1795, 1798, and 1802. These early laws estabUshed the basic re- 
quirements that remain in naturalization laws today. A 5-year resi- 
dency, which is basically Jefferson. The good moral character. And 
attachment to the principles of the Constitution. 


Then in 1906, we added the Enghsh language requirement. But 
we did not add it until 1906. 

So these requirements have been adjusted over the years, but 
they have been constant in naturalization throughout the history. 
The interesting point, one of the interesting examples of adjust- 
ment: the English language, for example, was changed in 1950. Be- 
fore that time, only spoken English was required. 

The Internal Security Act of 1950 said new citizens must dem- 
onstrate not only spoken English, but reading and writing in Eng- 
lish as well, and the subcommittee issued a report at the time, said 
one reason for the change was that testimony conclusively shows 
an anti-American and subversive activities are more easily carried 
on among non-English speaking groups of aliens than among those 
who are thoroughly conversant with our language. 

We accept the English requirement as important today, but for 
different reasons than subcommittee articulated 46 years ago. 

Let me add, in broad strokes, quickly, with the panel. Do you see 
any reasons to change the basic naturalization requirement that 
have been a part of the law since the beginning of the Nation, or 
are those tenets still pretty good? 

Mr. Klusmeyer. May I address your German example because 
I think it is quite instructive. Germany, for many, many years, had 
a highly restrictive naturalization policy. It was very difficult to be- 
come a German citizen if you were not native bom, or you were not 
a German by culture. 

At the same time, they were importing guest workers, beginning 
in the 1950's. But the result of the requirements for citizenship 
were basically you had to eat, breathe, and sleep German before it 
was seen as an end product, as the final result of assimilation, as 
opposed to the American tradition which sees it as a starting point. 

As a result, even now, even when citizenship, or naturalization 
rights have been guaranteed to Turkish and other immigrants, 
most of them are not interested in it because they do not feel like — 
that in acquiring citizenship they will ever be recognized as truly 

So one of the reasons I favor a much less restrictive naturaliza- 
tion policy is because I think in the long run, it helps to integrate 
groups, and the alternative to that, it seems to me, is what the 
Germans now have, which is a permanent sub class of aliens that 
will continue for generations, and has been perpetuated for genera- 

Senator Kennedy. I think we have got a sub class as well in 
terms of that issue. We tried to deal with it with the amnesty pro- 
grams a number of years ago, and we tried to sort of have a clean 
slate, and we are still developing it again with a lot of other kinds 
of problems. 

But that is an issue for another time. I think the very interesting 
point that you have made, which is that the German experience is 
sort of the end of the process, and the American sort of a continu- 
ing, the beginning of the pathway, is a very different concept about 
how we are going to do it. 

And I think we are looking — are we getting into a situation 
where it ought to be in the United States an end product? 


Are we committed to trying to do what the early naturahzation 
concepts, the Founding Fathers — you know, keep it in the — concep- 
tually, as a part of the path, once you know that there is a fun- 
damental commitment toward Americanization, as has been de- 
scribed earlier? 

Let me just quickly go to two areas, but let me go to this dual 
citizenship issue. 

We have, and we have talked a Uttle bit about the — of course you 
have got a number of countries — as I understand it, there are 36 
countries that either do not let you give up your citizenship or 
make it almost impossible to do so. You can make all the pledges, 
commitments, swear on the bibles, and all that you want, and you 
still cannot renounce it, at least under the other countries. I do not 
know how you deal with that. Maybe there is some way of dealing 
with it. 

But there are a number of countries, for example, where we have 
the dual citizenship. For example, many Israeli Americans main- 
tain that. Chinese Americans. Very few, as I understand, Irish 
Americans. Many of the Israelis who retained Israeli citizenship 
served in the armies at the time of a particular conflict, and have 
gone back over there. 

So I am just wondering: Are we going to consider some of those, 
you know, less American than other U.S. citizens? I mean, how are 
we going to — what is your own — I guess, Mr. Klusmeyer, you have 
responded on that. I do not know whether you want to say any- 
thing, quickly, because my time is up. 

Mr. Klusmeyer. I do not think I have anything to add. 

[Letter containing a list of countries that do not permit dual citi- 
zenship follows:] 

The Library of Congress, 
Washington, DC, October 22, 1996. 
To: Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, United States Senate 
From: Constance A. Johnson, Legal Research Analyst 
Subject: Countries That Do Not Permit Dual Citizenship 

In response to your recent request, attached is a Ust of countries, other than the 
United States, that generally do not permit dual citizenship. Information on excep- 
tions, where available, is given in endnotes. The source for the list is a loose-leaf 
work entitled Citizenship Laws of the World: A Directory, compiled by the Office 
of Personnel Management's Office of Federal Investigations in 1994. It should be 
noted that information was not available on the following nations: Albania, Arme- 
nia, Chad, Comoros, Ethiopia, Georgia, Peru, Surinam, Tajikistan, and 
Turkmenistan. Otherwise, the countries not hsted are those that do permit dual citi- 

It is hoped this information will be of use to you. 


Countries That Do Not Recognize Dual Citizenship 

Afghanistan** ***, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina* *****, Austraha*** (plus 
natvu-alized citizens may retain birth country citizenship), Austria* **, Azerbaijan** 
Bahamas*, Bahrain, Bangladesh**, Belarus*****, Belgium*, Belize*, Bhutan 
Bolivia** *****, Botswana*, Brazil*, Brunei Darussalam*, Burkina Faso, Burma 
Burundi, Cambodia***, Cameroon*, Chile* ** *****, China (People's Republic) 
Congo, Costa Rica*** *****, Croatia, Cuba, Czech RepubHc** ***, Denmark* *** 
Djibouti, Dominican Republic*, Ecuador*****, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea** 
Estonia, Fiji*, Finland* ***, Gabon, Gambia***, Germany**, Ghana*, Greece 
Guatemala*****, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau*, Guyana***, Haiti*, Iceland (exception for 
child of one citizen and one citizen of another covmtry), India, Indonesia, Iran* ***, 
Iraq, Japan*, Kazakhstan*****, Kenya*, Kiribati, Korea, North (except citizens who 


go abroad sometimes still considered citizens by government), Korea, South, Kuwait, 
Kyrgyz Republic*****, Laos, Latvia (except those forced to leave after June 17, 1947 
and their descendants), Lesotho*, Liberia*, Libya, Lithuania (except those forced to 
leave from June 15, 1940 to Mar. 11, 1990), Luxembourg*, Madagascar* ***, 
Malawi*, Malaysia*, Mali****, Malta* **, Marshall, Islands*, Mauritania** ***, 
Mexico*, Micronesia, Moldova**, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique*, Namibia*, 
Nauru***, Nepal, Netherlands* ***, Nicaragua*****, Niger, Norway* **, Oman, 
Pakistan*, Palau, Panama*, Papua New Guinea*, Philippines* ***, Poland, Qatar, 
Rwanda*, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia***, Seychelles** ***, Sierra Leone, 
Singapore*, Slovenia****, Solomon Islands, Spain*****, Sri Lanka**, Sudan, Swazi- 
land, Sweden* **, Taiwan, Tanzania* ***, Thailand*, Tonga, Uganda*, 
Ukraine*****, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu*, Venezuela*, Vietnam, 
Western Samoa*, Yemen, Zaire*, Zimbabwe 

* Child of citizens bom abroad who obtains the citizenship of the country of birth may retain 
dual citizenship until becoming an adult. At that time, usually must choose one. 

**In special circumstances, dual citizenship may be arranged. 

*** Dual citizenship acquired through marriage may be retained. 

**** Law under review and may be changed. 

***** Under reciprocal agreements, dual citizenship in certain countries may be retained. For 
many Latin American countries the agreements are with each other and with Spain. For former 
Soviet Union countries, agreements may be with each other. 

Compiled by Constance A. Johnson, Legal Research Analyst, Legal Research Directorate, Law 
Library of Congress, October 1996. Source: Citizenship Laws of the World: A Directory, Office 
of Personnel Management, 1994. 

International Citizenship Laws 

voluntary loss of citizenship not permitted 

Zambia — loss not permitted only if individual will be left stateless 
Syria — renunciation is technically permitted, but process is so complicated that for 
all practical purposes it is impossible to lose citizenship 


Cyprus, Estonia, Afghanistan 


Botswana, Burundi, Congo, Senegal, Togo, Zaire, Cuba, Haiti, Jamaica, Laos, 
North Korea, Greece, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Maldives, Timisia (these decrees are re- 
ported to be routine) 


Sengal, Sierra Leone, Zaire, Argentina (renunciation must also be accepted by Ar- 
gentine government), Dominican Republic, Haiti, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Luxemboxirg 

Brazil — 6 months to 1 year and proof of naturalization in another country 


China, Vietnam, Andorra, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Iran, Irag (renunciation of 
citizenship does not absolve person of duties and obligations to Iraq), Austria, Cro- 

Senator Kennedy. All right. 

Mr. FONTE. I would say a word on that. There may be some in- 
stances where it is in the national interest for people to have even 
dual citizenship. 

I think some American citizens served in Eastern European — I 
remember one minister was the Minister of Defense or something 
in Estonia, in the new regime. So there may be particular cir- 
cumstances, there may be family circumstances. 


But as a general rule, I think it is something we should limit. 
I think that is the question. You asked broad strokes, what should 
be our general conceptual overview? 

As a broad conceptual issue, I think dual citizenship is some- 
thing we do not want to expand, we want to keep limited. And 
what can we do about other countries? People can give up their 
passports. So we can reject the dual nationality proposal of Mexico, 
and perhaps say people should not have to have a Mexican pass- 
port, and we consider the renunciation legitimate for us. So that 
should hold fast. 

Senator Kennedy. Just finally, Professor Harrison, one of the 
points I have trouble in accepting in the presentation is in your as- 
sessment in terms of the political realities in Central and South 
America, and the dictatorships. Of course over the period of recent 
years, there has been a significant movement toward democracy. 

You know, if you accept that as a concept, that people have 
grown up in those kinds of cultures, have really been willing, that 
is their orientation, and therefore, that can lead to situations, as 
they say, well, we may not be prepared to accept those that come 
from those traditions, so that we will not accept people from those 
particular areas, or countries. 

I must say, I am rather startled about it, particularly when you 
see what has happened in the world in the last 30 or 40 years. I 
mean, the Communists take over Eastern Europe, and the indoc- 
trination of the Communists in that part of the world, many of 
them without the benefits of even the rudimentary concepts of 
Western political thought, and the extraordinary rise of interest in 
the development of the Western political thought. 

Most of our constitutional authorities, up in our part of the 
world, are spending all their time in Eastern Europe drafting con- 
stitutions over there, and an awful lot of them replicate the United 
States and still have not been effective. I grant you that. 

But I think for the most part so many of those that come here 
come to escape those conditions and come here because they believe 
in a different sort of concept. 

Hopefully, they will do it legally. That is what we are interested 
in. But I have difficulty in thinking that just because, necessarily, 
people have grown into the period of exploitation, or particular 
forms of Government, that that necessarily would reflect itself on 
whether they could be committed to the fundamental concepts and 
principles of the Constitution. 

Mr. Harrison. I would certainly not say that there should be no 
immigration from such areas. In the areas themselves, as you have 
just pointed out, there is change. It is very late. We are at the end 
of the 20th century. 

But even in this respect, the political respect. Senator, there is 
evidence in the United States that Hispanics tend to register — this 
is Hispanic citizens — tend to register less and tend to vote less. 

I believe that that is, as is the case with the high school dropout, 
and the other disconcerting evidence of lack of acculturation, some- 
thing to ponder when the flow is so large. The principal country of 
origin of immigrants into our society is Mexico. 


This is why my third general observation was that we should be 
very mindful of the acculturation issue as we consider the levels of 

Senator Kennedy. Well, so do young people who have the poorest 
record of voting in the United States, of any group. It is the 
younger people, that have all gone through our schools, and gone 
through our colleges, and have allegedly been indoctrinated with 
governmental concepts and principles. Their voting is low. 

Mr. Harrison. That is another kind of problem, and I agree with 
you that it exists, and it is troublesome. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank you. 

Senator SiMPSON. You sound like a chairman there. Gretting right 
with it, are you not? No, no. No, no, Ted. It is not going to happen. 

Senator Kennedy. We are going to have to wait a while, are we? 

Senator Simpson. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. We have got to wait a while? [Laughter.l 

Senator Simpson. But let me just ask a few questions and then 
we will wind up this panel. I think this is just exactly what we are 
seeking. These are tough issues. 

Dr. Klusmeyer, would Germany recognize a renunciation of for- 
eign allegiance if that renunciation is not recognized by the foreign 

Mr. Klusmeyer. Grermany does not recognize dual citizenship. I 
do not know, in terms of the specifics, but one of the reasons — a 
big reason that Turks, even those that have been bom and raised, 
and educated in German schools, do not acquire German citizen- 
ship, is because they are not allowed to retain their citizenship in 
Turkey, and lose inheritance rights, et cetera. 

Senator Simpson. Well, we went through all that with the guest 
worker debate, and the education of this country as to guest work- 

But should dual citizens be required to make a choice? Just say, 
"Here you are, you make a choice." 

Mr. Klusmeyer. How are you going to enforce that, sir? 

Senator Simpson. I do not know. I am just asking the question, 
should they be required to make a choice? 

Mr. Klusmeyer. I think that if you require them to make a 
choice, you are simply going to perpetuate a fiction, because, you 
know, you require them to give up their passports. If their coun- 
tries of origin are willing to issue new passports, there is no way 
you can stop it. 

This is why I sort of see it as a non-issue. If you cannot stop it, 
what are we talking about? 

Senator SIMPSON. Well, it will not be a non-issue if the Govern- 
ment of Mexico decides, in their law, what they are talking about. 
Then we will see what happens. Then it will not be a non-issue at 
all. Throughout my 18 years here, I have always heard from the 
Mexican parliamentarians — ^you mind your own business and we 
will mind ours. That has been a very interesting part of this. 

But that is not always the case. When we have dealt with some 
very, very difficult situations, we have even had the Mexican Sen- 
ate passing resolutions, which if we had done that in this country, 
they would have been assuredly offended. 


Mr. FONTE. If I could say something, it is not a non-issue because 
it undermines American liberal democratic values, and most of the 
new citizens who take the oath of allegiance, and in that oath they 
renounce previous citizenship, they are thrilled when it is over. 

If you talk to new citizens — and all of us have seen these cere- 
monies, they are wonderful — and at the end of the ceremony, they 
do renounce previous allegiances and they swear full allegiance to 
the United States, and these people could not be more thrilled. 

So those are the kinds of ceremonies that we need. 

Senator Simpson. Let me just conclude, because I think this one 
is of some interest to us. Some scholars say that changes in trans- 
portation and communication technologies have made it more likely 
that immigrants, obviously, retain emotional ties and allegiance to 
their original country and cultures. 

Do any of you, in just like 1 minute, have thoughts on that issue, 
and what its implications are for U.S. policy on naturalization, 
Americanization, or immigration? 

Obviously, it is a whole new game compared to 30 years ago, 
with all the electronic and communication and transportation tech- 
nologies. What is your thought? Just 1 minute, because I have 
taken too long, and then we will go to the second panel, unless Ted 
has a question. 

Mr. Klusmeyer. Well, I think it is one of the causes behind the 
proliferation of dual citizenship, and I think that this proliferation 
is going to continue. 

And again, I return to my original point. You can think of all 
sorts of scary hypotheticals about what could happen, but this phe- 
nomenon has been growing throughout the 20th century, and there 
is simply no empirical evidence that I know of, that anyone else 
here has cited, to suggest that it is a problem. 

Now if empirical evidence is gathered, and it appears to be a 
problem, then you should revisit it. But at this point it is purely 

Mr. FONTE. By that time it will probably be too late. 

Senator Simpson. You have used up 5 seconds. You have 1 
minute to respond to that. 

Mr. FONTE. That is true, that the proliferation of the closer com- 
munications have led to this. It has also led to, some people think 
assimilation is going to McDonald's, watching American cultural, 
mass cultural television. 

This is essentially a worldwide phenomenon. It is a Westernized, 
it means modernization, Westernization. It is not patriot assimila- 
tion. It is not, I think, what we should be aiming at. 

Senator Simpson. And finally Professor Harrison. 

Mr. Harrison. This touches on the question of the global village 
versus the Nation-State, and I think that both things are a reality, 
but that for a long time to come it is going to be the Nation-State 
which is going to be the most decisive actor in the lives of individ- 
uals, in the lives of groups, lives of a society. And that at some con- 
siderable peril, we focus on the global village, if there are signifi- 
cant costs to our cohesiveness as a national society. 

Senator Simpson. Ted, do you have any further questions? 

Senator Kennedy. Just that I think that so many of us, starting 
from the point about, you know, general concern about where the 


country is going, and we want people to be involved, and be partici- 
pating in both exercising responsibilities of citizenship on tlus, and 
we are concerned about it. 

I do not know whether we are going to get ourselves — we may 
very well be in just a red hot, drag-out emotional kind of issue. 
Maybe in the next Congress, with enormous sort of — I see sort of 
political implications, and something that makes a lot of — as the 
Professor points out — very much a difference in terms of the re- 
ality. I mean, I have not really gotten into it, or dwelled on it, but 
I mean, there are obviously tugs and emotions on all sides on this. 

But it is certainly something that I am sure we are going to be 
addressing and be voting on, and it is good we have at least trig- 
gered some important thinking about it here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SiMPSON. Thank you. Senator Kennedy. Thank you very 
much, all of you. This has been a very helpful discussion. 

Panel two, then, the final panel of the day. 

Georgia Anne Geyer, the syndicated columnist, author of a cur- 
rent book, "Americans No More: The Death of Citizenship." 

Also Mr. Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for 
American Immigration Reform, and Raul Yzaguirre, president of 
the National Council of La Raza. 

Good to have you all here. I am sure none of you know what the 
other one is going to say, but maybe. [Laughter.] 

Anyway, let me say before you begin, I could have said it at the 
conclusion, that all three of you have been very active in the de- 
bate, in the national debate, in the national interest. I know yoiu* 
views differ and certainly differ with mine sometimes and with 
Senator Kennedy. You have all added a very high degree of civility 
and bringing good faith to the process. I think that is true from my 
experience with all of you. 

So in that order, Georgie Anne Geyer, good to have you here. 



Ms. Geyer. Ladies and gentlemen. Members of Congress, fellow 
American citizens. For more than 30 years, I have been a foreign 
correspondent and syndicated columnist covering virtually every 
area of the world. I have also, at the same time, always felt myself 
to be a representative of America abroad. These were years of con- 
flict and turbulence in the world, the years of the cold war, and I 
often found myself covering countries in the process of breakdown 
and disintegration — Lebanon, Afghanistan, parts of Central Asia 
and the Caucasus, finally, the worst of all, Bosnia. 

During those years, all of us had one great assurance about our 
own beloved country, that it cannot happen here. We, aft;er all, 
were blessed geographically by being protected by the arms of two 
great oceans. We had great, open frontiers to absorb our misfits. 


Most of all, we had the principles of the modem world, the prin- 
ciples of self-government, of respect for the results of the vote, of 
the jury system, and, above all, the rights, duties, and spirit of the 
citizenship oath, that volitionary allegiance, to name my favorite 
definition of citizenship, that we all make one to another and to our 

I no longer believe that it cannot happen here. We are at a point 
in our national life where many, many trends and tendencies are 
coming together to demean, to diminish, and to destroy citizenship. 
I am absolutely convinced that, if allowed to continue, they will de- 
stroy America as we have known it and substitute a very different 
country, one that is spiritually incoherent, humanly conflict-ridden, 
and economically hobbled by the very differences that we have cre- 
ated with our own hand. 

Let me touch upon the major trends and tendencies. First, the 
citizenship process. You may remember as in some distant misty 
past the days when new citizens were sworn in by black-robed 
judges in sober and beautiful court ceremonies, when new citizens 
often testified to their love of freedom in America, and where citi- 
zenship testing on civics and the English language was real and se- 

Today, let me characterize what we now face through the fa- 
mous, or infamous. Question 86 on one of the major citizenship 
tests. Question 86 asks the question, "Name one benefit of being 
a citizen of the United States." Ladies and gentlemen, there are 
only three acceptable answers, but first, a warning. Please do not 
mention Lincoln or Jefferson or Washington, FDR, or JFK Do not, 
please, let the words liberty, responsibility, or love of country some- 
how accidentally trip from your tongue, for you will not pass. 

There are only three correct answers, to obtain Federal jobs, to 
travel with a U.S. passport, and to petition for close relatives to 
come to the United States to live. Nowhere is the sense of Amer- 
ican citizenship today better exemplified than in those C3niical 
words by which we tell the world that the United States of America 
is not really very much, just a bunch of benefits and entitlements 
thrown randomly together for almost anyone who wants to come. 

Few Americans realize — I surely did not before I began writing 
my book, "Americans No More: The Death of Citizenship," that in 
1988, citizenship preparation, testing, and even approval of the 
tests was given over by the INS to ethnic and religious lobbies and 
to private companies. At the same time, the old testing on Amer- 
ican history and civics and the English language by INS officers, 
admittedly, often imperfect, gave way to oversimplified, dumbed 
down, and historically irrelevant standardized tests. 

Most immigrants will get only two or three questions and they 
are toughies. What is the capital of the United States? Who was 
the first President? One of the INS chiefs told me that every ques- 
tion cost them $5,000 to devise. Ladies and gentlemen, I am from 
the South Side of Chicago and I could only tell him, "You have 
been gypped." 

But not to worry if you cannot answer even those questions. Just 
call your friendly ethnic lobby or even the INS itself. They will 
send you a list of 20 questions, and, in fact, they are so very kind 

41-503 97-10 


and understanding that they will include the answers right along 
with the questions. 

But it does not end there. When I was finishing my book last 
winter, I was stunned by the devolution of the entire citizenship 
process down to these outside groups with their own agendas that 
naturally and expectedly cannot be the agenda of the Nation. But 
I was not prepared for the corruption of the tests and for the scan- 
dal which have since ensued, of an American administration delib- 
erately using the Nation's sacred citizenship process for its own po- 
litical purposes. Today, we know that is true, as memo after memo 
has been released from the White House averring it. 

All you need to do is to read the papers every day and you see 
scandal after scandal — one testing company, NAS, falsifying the 
whole process and raking in the money; ethnic lobbies, as in Chi- 
cago, dumbing down the requirements for English language capa- 
bility; and, think of this, one of them in Chicago, my hometown, 
complained that the tests should not complain that the new citi- 
zens were becoming American citizens, so they changed it. The INS 
changed it to U.S. citizen. 

At this point, after story after story and on television shows like 
"20/20", there is really no question anymore that this Administra- 
tion has deliberately and systematically and utterly without con- 
cern to the spiritual coherence and inner stability of this Nation 
pushed through new citizens this year with no regard whatsoever 
to their preparation. 

Five thousand pushed through with criminal records. Thousands 
pushed through without fingerprints, little or no English testing, et 
cetera, et cetera. Judgments from the Inspector General's Office 
that all of this was impermissible and illegal were just ignored by 
the INS. 

Ladies and gentlemen, what have we come to as a nation when 
we allow the one commitment and process that unites us all or 
whose absence disunites us all to be so demeaned and disparaged? 

In the short time we have, let me go over very quickly some of 
the other areas of my profound concern. First, non-citizen voting. 
I can already hear good citizens saying, what are you saying? It is 
illegal in all States for non-citizens to vote. That is true, but the 
fact is that all you need to do is get a library card in Chicago, or 
most cities, and with our lax immigration laws, you can get a driv- 
er's license and a voting card. The Los Angeles Examiner has esti- 
mated that at least 20 Congressmen and women owe their vote to 
the illegal vote. 

Illegal immigration — in today's America, many illegal immi- 
grants often have more privileges than do Americans. But my 
major deep concern is that what we have done with illegal immi- 
gration is to completely cutoff the benefits of the Nation from the 
responsibility of citizenship. 

Ladies and gentlemen, illegal immigration corrupts everyone. It 
utterly destroys the connection between commitment to nation and 
responsibility to one's fellow man and replaces it with a cynical 
view of American society as simply a carcass upon which to feed. 
If the mantra of the dumbed down citizenship test is "easy, easy, 
easy", then the mantra for how we Americans are advertising our 
country is "benefits, benefits, benefits". 


We used to have reasonable restrictions on citizenship. We used 
to assume that EngUsh was the language of the land. We knew 
such things. Today, dual citizenship is common, character con- 
firmation does not exist, et cetera, et cetera. We have new move- 
ments in the Southwest which are essentially separatist move- 
ments. I never took them seriously before now, but I do take them 
seriously, particularly the movements for Aztlan or for reclaiming 
the Southwest for Mexico. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I have only touched upon the tip of the 
iceberg, but let me say that every single element that I have seen 
overseas in the countries that I have seen collapse under me, 
whether it was Lebanon or Bosnia, I am seeing now in America — 
the death of an all-encompassing ideology, the deconstructing of na- 
tions in the name of ambitious individual egos, the breakdown of 
one language as the unifying element in society, the sudden thun- 
dering of legal or legitimized population power balances. 

If, indeed, the United States goes as I believe it is, we will be 
just generally neutralized internally and this will affect not only 
us, the last best hope of mankind, more critically necessary in the 
post-cold war world than ever will be gone. Citizenship stands at 
the center of all of this. It is what will keep us together or drive 
us apart, or as is happening, simply set us one against the other, 
a bartering and bargaining crowd, quarrelsome and conflictive 
strangers in the land where once we knew the brotherhood and sis- 
terhood that was citizenship. 

Thank you. 

Senator Simpson. Thank you very much. 

Dan Stein, please. 


Mr. Stein. Mr. Chairman, my name is Dan Stein. I am the direc- 
tor of FAIR. The hearings of this type are a poignant reminder of 
how much we will all miss you in this Congress. The importance 
of the subject matter and thoughtfulness of the hearing and 
breadth of it are vitally in the national interest and you will be 
sorely missed, but we think you have done a great job. I know you 
will stay involved. 

Senator Simpson. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Stein. This citizenship scandal reminds me of the old saw. 
The order comes in, "Daddy, my teacher is nervous." "Why is that?" 
"Daddy, she says that if I do not get better grades, somebody is 
going to take a licking," and in the old days, everyone understood 
what that means. But today, it does mean that the standards are 
the things that take a licking if the students do not do well, the 
educational standards. 

The standards for new citizens are being demeaned dramatically 
as we all observe the effort by the Administration to naturalize by 
election 1.3 million new citizens with zealous efforts, as the inter- 
office memoranda indicate, to water down, smooth over, accelerate 
and waive or otherwise make the process as easy as possible. 

I think this really implicates a broader concern here, which is 
the sheer volume. The sheer volume of new immigrants, new citi- 
zens using this system, the number of people coming through will 
have a great bearing on the quality of resources we can deliver to 


individual citizens. When we run mass naturalization programs 
without adequate resources, the integrity of the process is quickly 
compromised. When we run mass naturalization for those who 
come from a contiguous country with a historical political griev- 
ance, the failure to give the process integrity can take on broader 
long-term dimensions, which I hope to address a bit later. 

But in this country today, we have adopted Sheldon Wolin's "thin 
theory of consent", where, as Richard Sinopoli says in a recent 
book, "the centralization of political power in the administrative 
state of the 20th century and great concentrations of economic 
power have contributed to the delegitimization of democratic man 
and the replacement of the very notion of citizen by that much 
studied specimen, the American voter." "A State that needs only 
formal legitimation," says Wolin, "reduces citizenship to such a 
negligible consideration that all the burning issues of political the- 
ory, participation, equality, civic virtue and justice, no longer seem 
to matter." 

We could not agree more. This country has essentially estab- 
lished a thin intellectual gruel on which our citizenship conception 
is based, inherited mostly from the framers and the Founding Fa- 
thers and political philosophers that they inherited. Citizenship in 
this country does need to involve more in the way of active commu- 
nity management and participation so that citizens feel that their 
citizenship means something and distinguishes them from non-citi- 

Although scholars and academics debate the meaning of citizen- 
ship at length, for us at FAIR, the matter is straightforward. The 
Nation is basically made up of land, which includes airspace re- 
sources, natural endowments, the people, in quotes, the people, and 
institutions. The people in a republican democracy support the in- 
stitutions. As Churchill said, "We shape our buildings, and after- 
wards, our buildings shape us." Political institutions reflect the 
civic character and virtue of the citizens that comprise them. 

Virtues that we think should be promoted in the citizenship proc- 
ess and generally, discipline and the self-study and personal im- 
provement it implies; honesty, fair dealing, including good moral 
character. Burke said private honor is the foundation of public 
trust. We should remind ourselves of that as we work hard to try 
to separate private honor and the public trust. 

General love of country; a duty to inquire, including a duty and 
an educational ability to inquire into the political and social history 
of the country. Burke also noted that those who will not look back 
at their ancestors will never look forward to their posterity. 

A drive to succeed, which implies a drive to acquire the common 
language and pursue excellence, however defined; a commitment to 
understand and support our republican form of government and a 
commitment to participate in it and vote in it; a shared sense of 
future and shared sacrifice. My biological ancestors, great grand- 
parents, came from Russia, but my political ancestors are Washing- 
ton, Hamilton, Lincoln. A willingness to recognize and support the 
Constitution and national boundaries, and a commitment to pre- 
serve the land and its resources. 

My testimony goes into some discussion about this idea of a uni- 
versal nation, this world versus Jihad concept that the United 


States is becoming, our international/transnational culture, and 
then I go on to make some specific recommendations about not 
using private contractors. 

We also believe that the naturalization process should be a two- 
step process. The potential citizen should set up a declaration of in- 
tent to naturalize within a rigorous educational process put on by 
government-sponsored programs to inculcate the values and virtues 
I just mentioned. This would be essentially an 8-year process with 
3 years after the declaration of intent to naturalize. 

User fees should cover the actual cost of the naturalization. We 
support a public service requirement for potential new citizens. We 
recommend at least 100 hours and trust Congress to craft the gen- 
eral parameters of what that would be. 

References should be required for naturalization applicants and 
there should be no exemption from the English language require- 
ment. As Ron Dworkin has observed, the right to claim member- 
ship in a liberal political community "should presuppose the capac- 
ity to make one's political preferences known." As their burden is 
the same, the requirements for demonstrating their ability to meet 
that burden should be the same. Citizenship should not be a re- 
ward for endurance but a recognition for fitness to join the political 
body politic. 

But all these other factors pale in comparison to the main issue. 
Fifty years from now, we will look back and see the decision of the 
Mexican government to allow dual nationality as one of the most 
historic events of this century, I believe. 

When you are talking about limited dual nationalities arising as 
a result of small numbers of immigrants coming from countries 
halfway across the globe, these factors maybe do not represent a 
threat to the security of the country, but as Americans watch new 
citizens taking the oath of office, the oath says, "I hereby declare, 
on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all alle- 
giance and fidelity to any foreign prince," and on and on. 

Now, unless those words have no meaning, unless this is a fraud, 
unless we can have it both ways, one foot in, one foot out, rights 
and privileges in both countries, then we should not ask citizens 
to take the oath of allegiance if, in fact, they are not declaring ex- 
clusive allegiance to this country. 

Now, the difficulties are somewhat obvious when we consider the 
situation of native-bom citizen, but for immigrants, it should not 
be that difficult. We recommend that there be a 30-day period after 
the taking of the oath of allegiance during which time the new citi- 
zen will have demonstrated amply that he or she will have taken 
whatever steps are required to relinquish their nationality in their 
original country or else the new U.S. citizenship is automatically 

When you have millions of people from a contiguous foreign 
country which has a prior ancestral land claim, a historic political 
grievance, a belief that the United States has occupied Mexico, that 
the Treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo really does not exist, you are not 
dealing with the immigrant contract with America, which is that 
I come from a home country 20,000 miles away, never to see it 
again, to join the American experiment, to become a citizen and 
pursue the American dream. It becomes, in a sense, a process, as 


we hear frequently from Mexican officials, of reoccupying what was 
theirs an)^way, although Spain held it longer than anyone. 

The truth is, over time, if you have dual nationals from the Unit- 
ed States and Mexico with U.S. citizens in Mexico participating in 
Mexican elections and Mexican citizens participating in U.S. elec- 
tions, in time, the border becomes meaningless and you, in a 
sense — the previous panel has said there was no empirical evi- 
dence. Well, one has to merely read Will Durant's "Lessons of His- 
tory" to understand what is happening here. This is not immigra- 
tion. This is recolonization, and binationality or dual citizenship in 
that context is a troublesome thing. If, at some point down the line, 
Mexico were to decide to try to run its writ across parts of the 
Southern United States, which side of the conflict would these dual 
nationals fall on? 

I know it sounds a little alarmist to raise the issue now, but rec- 
ognize that we are now naturalizing millions and millions of people 
potentially in this situation, and so that we will be eviscerating 
those distinctions down the line in what I believe will be a long- 
term and profound historic mistake. 

I also address in my testimony the fact that invidious distinc- 
tions or punitive distinctions between citizens and non-citizens are 
not appropriate. Someone who comes here and, as a result of hard- 
ships which could not have been foreseen, certainly should be ac- 
commodated. Nevertheless, making distinctions in welfare benefits, 
in various entitlements and other privileges of citizenship are 
rightfully reserved for citizens and we believe that Congress acted 
appropriately and should continue to act appropriately to restore 
the viability of the idea that citizenship matters, that State re- 
sources can be reserved for citizens, that it is healthy, it is right, 
that Proposition 187 turned out to be the biggest naturalization 
program spur that we have seen in the last 50 years. 

Three years ago, we heard complaints that not enough people 
were naturalizing in the New York Times and suddenly everybody 
wants to become a citizen. The incentives have to be built into the 
process and the distinctions between citizen and non-citizen are im- 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stein follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dan Stein 

When any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely * * * , they were not at 
once admitted to citizenship[.] The reason for this was that if foreigners were 
allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in 
its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the 
common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people. 
— Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part I of Second Part, Q. 105, 
Art. 3. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify on behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). My 
name is Dan Stein and I am the executive director of FAIR. FAIR is a national non- 
profit, public interest organization working to end illegal immigration and to adjust 
immigration to conform it to today's national need. 

My testimony today is about making naturalization a more meaningful process. 
To do so, I suggest we follow the lead of Congress itself, which has just passed a 
law that began as the Immigration in the National Interest Act. While opinions on 
the final form this law has taken vary, I must applaud the concept at its heart, the 
concept that immigration should in fact be fashioned with reference to the needs of 


the American people and the national interest. Had our country not lost sight of this 
central precept, further dramatic immigration reforms might not be necessary today. 
Most of the problems of immigration stem from forgetting that immigration should 
be beneficial not simply for the immigrant, but for our society as well. To be a suc- 
cess, the relationship between the immigrant and our society must be mutually ben- 

We are concerned that recent mismanagement of the naturalization process has 
cut comers and has degraded the standards for citizenship. However, the diminu- 
tion of the value of citizenship is not confined to, nor did it begin with, the natu- 
ralization process. America's awareness of the responsibilities of any citizen, native- 
bom or naturalized, to his country have faded. Nowadays, everything is viewed in 
terms of individual rights, and what our country can do for us has eclipsed what 
we can do for our country. We have adopted Sheldon Wolin's "thin theory of con- 
sent" where, as Richard Sinopoli states in The Foundations of American Citizenship, 
"the centralization of political power in the administrative state of the twentieth 
century and great concentrations of economic power have contributed to the 
'delegitimization of democratic man' and the replacement of the very notion of citi- 
zen by that much studied specimen, the American voter. 'A state that needs only 
formal legitimation,' [says Wolin], reduces 'the citizen to such a negligible consider- 
ation that all the burning issues of political theory — participation, equality, civic vir- 
tue and justice — no longer seem to matter.'" (Oxford University Press, 1992.) 

Although scholars and academics debate the meaning of citizenship at length, for 
us the matter is fairly straightforward: A nation is made up of land (including air- 
space, resources and natural endowments), "the people," and institutions. "The peo- 
ple" in a republican democracy support the institutions — or as Churchill said, "we 
shape our buildings, and afterwards, our buildings shape us." Political institutions 
reflect the civic character and virtues of the citizens that comprise them. The vir- 
tues we have favored historically are both individual and social: 

• Discipline, and the self-study and personal improvement it implies; 

• honesty and fair dealing, including good moral character; 

• a general love of country; 

• a duty to inquire — including a duty and educational ability to inquire into the 
political and social history of the nation; 

• a drive to succeed, which implies a drive to acquire the common language and 
pursue excellence, however defined; 

• a commitment to understand and support our republican form of government, 
and a commitment to participate and vote in it; 

• a sense of shared future and shared sacrifice; 

• a willingness to recognize and support the Constitution and the nation's bound- 

• a commitment to preserve the land and its resources. 

Naturalization procedures and preparations should emphasize these positive vir- 
tues through study and social service. Is there a national consensus on this? Truth- 
fvdly, there is no longer any real agreement about what this country is: Is it an 
idea? Are we a "universal nation" transcending the land boundaries and the nation- 
based culture? Some believe that. We at FAIR doubt it. For the immigrant, there 
are even greater burdens. They come from the need to "catch up," if you will. She/ 
he has not lived a life in the United states, and therefore enters the stream of civil 
discourse later and without a shared part of the collective national memory. Natu- 
ralization practices should take this into account, and work to help ensvu-e the new 
naturalized citizenry understands and is exposed to the social, political and cultural 
events of the past twenty years. Toda/s naturalization exam obviously reflects an 
effort to simplify and accelerate the process of mass naturalization. It does not re- 
flect any real effort to inculcate more than a tiny component of this overarching 
scheme. It goes well beyond the scope of this testimony to consider all the changes 
that would be needed to revive these broader precepts. But at a minimum, those 
eligible for Permanent Resident status need to be better educated, and placed under 
far greater scrutiny prior to admission than is now the case. 

Before reviewing our recommendations, I point out that my remarks presuppose 
an Executive Branch of the government that is committed to enforcing both the spir- 
it and letter of the law. Recent scandals involving INS and its contractors suggest 
that now there is more emphasis on expediency — even at the expense of legahty or 
integrity — than in ensuring a process that serves the broad public interest. Most re- 
cent immigrants, it seems, are spurred to naturalize by the prospect of bringing 
more relatives or maintaining access to various public benefits programs. 

In this cUmate, it is understandable what has happened to naturalization. Instead 
of being the means by which America assures that its adopted citizens understand 
the burdens of citizenship — and demonstrate their readiness to assume them — it is 


treated as the means by which ahens can more quickly petition for the admission 
of relatives abroad. 

Immigration and Naturalization Service is the name. Just as immigration should 
be in the national-community's interest, so too should naturalization. The question 
then is not simply what is fair to the immigrant, but rather what is beneficial for 
our country. With that in mind, we recommend the following changes in the natu- 
ralization process. 

All private contracting of the naturalization process should stop. The recent dif- 
ficulties of the Citizensfup USA program are evidence of the risk of making citizen- 
ship a business. This dangerous experiment has failed, and badly. Do not be de- 
ceived: the answer does not lie in tightening the controls over private contractors, 
establishing oversight committees to monitor them, or even detailed regulation 
about what procedures they must follow. All private contracting of the naturaliza- 
tion process should cease. The use of private contractors necessarily sets up a re- 
ward system whose sole interest lies in qualifying as many people as quickly as pos- 
sible. This emphasis on the quantity of applicants handled inevitably damages the 
quality of the process. Clearly, the responsibility for naturaUzation lies with the 
state and must be carried out by the state. The state cannot appropriately farm out 
its responsibility for naturalization — an act of supreme national importance — any 
more than it can contract out the duties of this legislative body. 

Naturalization should be a two-step process, beginning with a declaration of intent 
to naturalize. A lawful permanent resident alien should be eligible, after five years 
in that status, to declare his intent to naturalize. That declaration should be fol- 
lowed by a three-year period in which the applicant has the opportunity to fulfill 
all the requirements for citizenship and the government has the opportunity to do 
a thorough check for criminal background or other disqualifying features. Regard- 
less of when the requirements are met, the applicant could not be naturalized until 
the end of the three-year period. This built-in schedule will remove any temptation 
to stint the process by rushing it along or by omitting some part entirely (as has 
happened in the Citizenship USA program with fingerprint checks). 

The naturalization user fee should not be subsidized; it should reflect the actual 
cost of the service of naturalization. In its April 1994 report on INS user fees (GAO/ 
GDD-94-101), the Generjd Accounting Office pointed out that the naturalization 
user fee covers less than half of the pro-rated cost of the naturalization process. Of 
all INS user fees, the naturalization fee is the one most discounted from the actual 
taxpayer cost of the service provided. The GAO estimated the cost of the process 
at approximately $200 per person. Surely anyone prepared to assume the burden 
of citizenship can, over a period of eight years, meet this burden as well. 

The naturalization process should include a public service requirement. The proc- 
ess of becoming a citizen should help prepare immigrants to bear the burden of citi- 
zenship. While not all citizens can do public service, it is important to communicate 
to applicants that citizenship is about contributing to society, not just to oneself. 
Many high schools require community service of their students to qualify for grad- 
uation; the seriousness of inculcating the demands of citizenship properly exercised 
suggests that this is an appropriate requirement as well. We would suggest a re- 
quirement of at least 100 hours, and trust that Congress and the INS could craft 
appropriate general criteria for what would constitute public service. Over the three- 
year period between declaration of intent and final naturalization, there would be 
plenty of opportunity to complete the community service requirement. 

References should be required for naturalization applicants. Just as immigrants 
must have sponsors for their admission and every job in the United states requires 
references as a precautionary measure and as a means to verify the character of 
the applicant, so too this standard and obvious method should be part of the natu- 
ralization process. Naturalization would require affidavits from three U.S. citizens 
of good character (as defined by the naturalization law already), testifying to the 
good character of the applicant and his desirability as a new citizen. No appropriate 
naturalization applicant should have difficulty finding such references afler five to 
eight years as a contributing member of our society. During the three-year declara- 
tion period, the INS would have ample opportunity to confirm the references, who 
might then later play a supporting role in the naturalization ceremony. 

There should be no exemptions from naturalization requirements, including the 
language requirement. In the past, there were no such exemptions. At present, the 
English language requirements are waived or modified under certain circumstances, 
such as age of the applicant or the length of his stay in the United States. But in 
our society, the eldest are as responsible for the civic well-being as the rest of us. 
As Ronald Dworkin has observed, a right to claim membership in a liberal political 
community "should presuppose a capacity to make one's political preferences 
known." (Sinopoli at 170.) As their burden is the same, the reqtiirements for dem- 


onstrating their ability to meet that burden should be the same. Citizenship should 
not be a reward for endurance, but a recognition of fitness to join the American body 

Fvu-ther, English language requirements should be demanding enough to ensure 
fair opportunity to participate in a deliberative political process. This means more 
than just re-writing a memorized simple sentence. It means functioning, working 
knowledge of the English language at least at the high school graduate level. 

Dual citizenship should be limited to native-born U.S. citizens. The oath of citizen- 
ship is quite clear. It states that: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and 
entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, poten- 
tate, state or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citi- 
zen." Those becoming U.S. citizens should be required to take whatever steps are 
required to relinquish their first country's nationality within 30 days of taking the 
oath of allegiance to the United States. Since the Supreme Court's decision in 
Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967, it has become impossible to revoke naturalization for the 
exercise of foreign citizenship. Thus, naturalized and native-bom American citizens 
now vote in foreign elections and, in some recent cases, serve as high officials in 
foreign governments. The intentional exercise of foreign citizenship is a direct viola- 
tion of the citizenship oath and could be grounds for the revocation of naturaliza- 
tion. Unless Congress passes new law to reaffirm this principle, citizenship will con- 
tinue to lose significance in the United States. 

There is another aspect to this problem. Years from now, we may look back at 
the Mexican Government's willingness to allow dual nationality for its northern mi- 
grants as the beginning of the creation of a "nation within a nation." Never before 
in the history of the country have we admitted so many immigrants from a neigh- 
boring country. Many new immigrants from Mexico seem to believe that the U.S. 
is "occupied Mexico," and are taught this now not only in Mexico but in many Amer- 
ican schools. Over time, with dual nationality, the distinctions between the border 
regions could disappear with a significant section of the electorate of the view that 
the border with Mexico "really doesn't matter." If Mexico sought in the future to re- 
occupy parts of the southern U.S., whose side would these dual nationals be on? 
Maybe this danger is not realistic, but it should be considered. 

Appropriate distinctions should be maintained between citizens and non-citizens. 
It is axiomatic that the fewer differences between the role of the citizen and the role 
of non-citizen, the less important citizenship becomes. Over the years, various fed- 
eral and state courts have embraced the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th 
Amendment to justify eliminating a variety of state distinctions between aliens and 
citizens. In time, many Permanent Resident Aliens, especially those from contiguous 
nations apparently, felt that the value of citizenship did not justify taking the steps 
to naturalize. After all, if most of the benefits of citizenship can be obtained without 
assuming its burdens, why bother? 

It is true that aliens may now wish to natxu-alize "for the wrong reasons." But 
the answer to this problem is to improve the system as I have suggested above, not 
to give to non-citizens all the privileges of citizenship and none of the burdens. 

Mr. Chairman, we do not support invidious or punitive distinctions between our 
citizens and residents who are citizens of other countries; those distinctions that are 
made should be calculated to screen for a sense of commitment and loyalty to our 
nation. Assistance with disabilities that arise after lawful entry and coiild not have 
been foreseen and emergency medical treatment should certainly be available. How- 
ever, it is right and proper for Congress to permit states and localities to conserve 
scarce common resources for those who are citizens. 

Duty to the land. As a primary constituent of nationhood, the land and its preser- 
vation are considerations of the highest order. Citizenship training should include 
lessons in sound ecological practices and responsible family planning decisions and 
encouraging the goal of small American families. Immigration should not be a prime 
factor fueling U.S. population growth. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for beginning this important discus- 
sion of the meaning of citizenship. The dialogue on this issue is both of central im- 
portance to our future and long overdue. 

Senator SiMPSON. Thank you very much. 

Finally, Mr. Raul Yzaguirre. It is nice to have you here once 


Mr. Yzaguirre. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Raul 
Yzaguirre. I am president of the National Council of La Raza. I 


would like to introduce my testimony into the record, and with 
your permission, I will just simply make some remarks. 

Senator Simpson. It is so ordered. 

Mr. YZAGUIRRE. Mr. Chairman, let me identify myself with your 
opening comments on the value of citizenship as well as those of 
the ranking member of the committee. I think the sanctity of citi- 
zenship is something that we can all abide by and subscribe to. 

Let me speak directly to the issue and get at the heart of the 
matter. What we are talking about seems to be a scandal, a so- 
called scandal that, if I heard it correctly, that is part of our politi- 
cal process and that is some kind of an effort and a conspiracy on 
the part of INS to grant citizenship to people on the basis of their 
political motivation. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe there has been a scandal in INS. It is 
scandalous to me that for years, you had to wait 4 or 5 years from 
the time that you applied for citizenship to the time that you were 
granted it. That scandal has been occurring at INS for a long, long 
time. Indeed, many people have asserted that INS is a misnomer, 
or at least has been in the past, that it was not about immigration, 
it was not about naturalization, and certainly was not about serv- 

I applaud the efforts of Commissioner Meissner to bring immi- 
gration, naturalization, and service back to the INS and I am 
happy that we are finally directing some attention to what, indeed, 
has been a scandal for me for many, many years. 

INS has always been inept. It has not been a perfect institution. 
There is no evidence that I have heard of so far that suggests that 
it is now more inept than it was in the past. There is nothing in 
the record to suggest that the number of people who made it 
through the process who were not eligible to make it through the 
process has somehow increased. Yes, we have some anecdotes. Yes, 
we have some memos. Those memos, those anecdotes have always 

I am also surprised that people who have advocated private con- 
tracting by the government to carry on its functions in many other 
situations and in other venues seem to take affront by now having 
private contractors do some of these services. Also, let me state for 
the record that, as far as I know, no non-profit organization has 
been charged or accused, and certainly not convicted, of any kind 
of wrongdoing. What seems to be at play is some profit-seekers who 
often cut comers. 

Mr. Chairman, I share the concern that many of the panelists 
have expressed regarding the unity of this Nation. I served in the 
armed forces, I took an oath of office, and I deeply respect the insti- 
tutions of this Nation. 

Let me tell you with all sincerity that, in my judgment, the big- 
gest threat to unity, to comity, to cohesion is bigotry and prejudice. 
I say that as clearly and as forcefully as I possibly can. It is not 
ethnics. It is not minorities. It is not immigrants. They have been 
useful scapegoats for some politicians to get elected. 

Let us remind ourselves what other people have said about pre- 
vious immigrant groups. Jews, Mr. Stein, were said to be un-Amer- 
ican and could never become Americanized. Some of the earlier 
founders of this country asserted that the largest ethnic group in 


America, German Americans, could never become Americans. In- 
deed, Senator Kennedy, the Irish were widely seen in newspapers 
as not being able to be assimilated into the United States of Amer- 

I find it absolutely incredible that before this committee, an indi- 
vidual who has represented the American Government in Latin 
America finds it convenient to demean and defame an entire con- 
tinent as unworthy of being an American. You know, I have gotten 
used to hearing a lot of incredible rhetoric in these kinds of hear- 
ings, but I have to tell you that it is very difficult for me to control 
my emotions when I hear somebody say that, somehow, an entire 
continent, indeed, almost the majority of the entire hemisphere, is 
somehow less worthy of becoming Americans, and then they use all 
kinds of phony explanations. 

Somehow, Latins are not supposed to be as American as others 
because we do not vote. Mr. Chairman, let me point out to you that 
Hispanic Americans are voting exactly as you would predict them 
to vote. The three biggest contributors and determinants of voting 
are age, education, and income. If you take those into consider- 
ation, Hispanics being the youngest, the most undereducated, and 
the most poor in this country, we are voting exactly at the level 
that we are voting. 

Indeed, the cultural values that are historical in nature would 
suggest something very different. We are voting like Americans. 
Had we been voting like Mexicans, we would be voting at 80 and 
90 percent rates. If we were voting like Puerto Ricans in Puerto 
Rico instead of Puerto Ricans in the United States, we would be 
voting at 80 and 90 percent levels. I have never seen people with 
so many credentials offer up so much trip before a panel of the U.S. 

I do not know, Mr. Chairman, if there were politics involved in 
launching the citizenship initiative by the administration. I do not 
know if there were politics in the reason we are holding these hear- 
ings. I can tell you that this is something, that citizenship is some- 
thing that we ought to be promoting. It is something that we val- 
ued in the past and I see no reason why we should devalue it now. 

Let me also be very clear on one other issue. I cannot speak for 
my organization, because we have simply not taken a position on 
it, but let me speak for myself. I do not favor dual citizenship. I 
think it is a phony issue. When 39 countries allowed dual citizen- 
ship, we never said anything about it. But now that Mexico is talk- 
ing about not dual citizenship but simply not recognizing the re- 
nunciation of the Mexican nationality, which is their sovereign 
right — whether it is the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, 
that is their sovereign right to do so. 

I personally served in the Armed Forces. We did not ask our- 
selves whether we should serve. We knew we had to serve. Let me 
also point out some other history. In World War II, the beginning 
of World War II, when hundreds of thousands of Mexican Ameri- 
cans had the right and privilege to return and reclaim their citizen- 
ship in Mexico because their parents were Mexican citizens, they 
did not do so. 

They served the United States of America in greater numbers 
and in greater percentages with greater proportions than the num- 


bers would indicate, more heroically. Indeed, people like General 
MacArthur said he would trade all his troops for Mexican Ameri- 
cans, the most decorated Americans in World War II on a propor- 
tionate basis. Yet, we have assertions before this committee that, 
somehow, the patriotism of these Americans should be less than 
other Americans. 

Mr. Chairman, I am enormously tired of the scapegoating that is 
going on in this country. I am enormously tired of all kinds of ex- 
traneous issues, like multicultural education, ethnic lobbies, all 
manner of h3rpocrisy being thrown at us. Again, let me go back to 
what I said earlier. We should be all concerned with the unity of 
this Nation, with the cohesion of this Nation, and if we are truly 
about that, we will work on the real problems of this society, rac- 
ism and prejudice, and we have seen an ample amount of that 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yzaguirre follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Raul Yzaguirre 

My name is Ravil Yzaguirre, and I am the President of the National Council of 
La Raza (NCLR), the nation's largest constituency-based Hispanic organization. Es- 
tablished in 1968, NCLR today has over 200 community-based organizations who to- 
gether serve 38 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia — and a broader 
network of more than 20,000 groups and individuals nationwide — reaching more 
than two million Hispanics annually. NCLR has long recognized the importance of 
citizenship as the final step in the process by which legal immigrants become Amer- 
icans. It is a key to political empowerment for immigrant communities, and a proud 
step that many Latinos remember taking themselves, or watching their parents or 
grandparents take with pride and honor. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today, especially 
at a time when the naturalization process seems to be under political attack, and 
hope that the positive aspects of the process are not overlooked during today's dis- 
cussion. For far too long Latinos and other immigrants have faced numerous obsta- 
cles in their attempts to become citizens, obstacles that have deterred many immi- 
grants from seeking and obtaining citizenship. Rather than vilify those immigrants 
who have chosen to take the oath of citizenship during the past few years, we 
should wholeheartedly open our arms and welcome them as new Americans eager 
to take part in our nation's political system. 


NCLR has a long history of promoting naturalization among the Latino commu- 
nity and, along with its affiliated community-based organizations, has focused on 
conducting outreach to immigrants to encourage them to naturalize. NCLR also has 
prepared several analyses of the naturalization process, and on numerous occasions 
has provided testimony before Congress on the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) and its administration of its services. A 1991 NCLR report, Unlocking 
the Golden Door: Hispanics and the Citizenship Process, analyzed the naturalization 
process and found that Hispanic immigrants naturalize at one of the lowest rates 
of any ethnic group; in fact, a 1995 report by the Congressional Research Service 
found that residents bom in El Salvador and Mexico had the lowest percent of natu- 
ralized populations, 15.4% and 22.6% respectively. 

The report also traced the many obstacles which deter Latinos and other immi- 
grants from seeking and obtaining citizenship. One of these obstacles is distrust of 
the INS, particularly by immigrants who view the INS more as an enforcement than 
service agency. We cannot deny that the agency's role in border enforcement and 
work site raids, and the abuse that sometimes results from this role, gain more pub- 
licity than its role as a service provider. However, many legal immigrants and na- 
tive-bom citizens of Hispanic descent have an intuitive suspicion of the INS dating 
back to a series of "repatriation" campaigns in the early and mid- 1900s which re- 
sulted in thousands of citizens and permanent residents being deported without 
benefit of due process. In recent years, many Hispanic immigrants and citizens have 


alleged that INS immigration law enforcement continues to have a discriminatory 
effect on Hispanics; this suspicion is supported by the fact that over 90% of INS en- 
forcement activities are targeted at Latinos, though they make up less than 90% of 
the undocumented population. 

Another obstacle encountered by immigrants is the actual implementation of the 
naturalization process, which for many potential applicants turns naturalization 
into a daunting task. Some of these implementation problems include lengthy lines 
to obtain forms, the need to take time off from work (which often places undue fi- 
nancial stress on applicants), and persistent and worsening backlogs. Even during 
the mid-1980s, applicants in Los Angeles had to wait up to three years between the 
filing of the appucation and the scheduling of the interview. Although increases in 
personnel and a transition to computerized application processing reduced the wait- 
ing period to fovu- months, a 1991 report by the General Accounting Office found 
that the INS-wide processing time had climbed as high as 6.2 months, while in some 
cities it was nearly one year. 

Inconsistent and confiising administration of the naturalization exam is another 
obstacle many immigrants face. For the most part, INS examiners have a great deal 
of latitude in administering the English and Civics portions of the exam, and can 
make it as difficult as they wish. Documented studies, as well as complaints re- 
ceived by NCLR, have revealed that examiners often make up their own questions, 
which can be extraordinarily difficult and which few native-bom U.S. citizens can 
answer. The fact that Hispanic applicants are denied at a higher rate than other 
ethnic groups also serves to reinforce the fears of other Hispanics eligible to apply. 


In spite of these existing obstacles, during the past three years a record number 
of immigrants have applied for citizenship. While there has been plenty of publicity 
surrounding the possible reasons for this unprecedented increase, NCLR is aware 
of several explanations for this surge. First, outreach efforts by NCLR, the National 
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), and local immigra- 
tion coalitions throughout the country have been successful in promoting citizenship 
among ehgible legal immigrants. Both NCLR's report. Unlocking the Golden Door: 
Hispanics and the Citizenship Process, and NALEO's proceedings of a 1993 con- 
ference on citizenship. The Surge in Naturalization in the 1990s: Promise or Peril?, 
found that immigrants faced many obstacles in their attempts to become citizens, 
including mistrust of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), inconsist- 
ent and ineffective administration of the citizenship process, long waiting periods, 
and lack of access to English and civics classes. 

Second, in 1994, the debate surrounding the campaign in support of Proposition 
187 in California, on which Governor Pete Wilson based his reelection, conveyed to 
immigrants, both legal and undocumented, the impression that they were under at- 
tack. This was confirmed after the passage of Proposition 187 as "foreign-looking" 
individuals — some who were U.S. citizens — were asked to present their green cards 
in order to receive service at grocery stores, restaurants, and banks. Proposition 187 
was seen as a wake-up call to immigrant communities who now want to help combat 
this and other similarly offensive policies proposed at the State and national levels. 
Throughout the country, immigrants tell us that they want to naturalize so they can 
vote and fight against such immigrant-bashing campaigns. Along with such State 
initiatives, recent welfare reform legislation made dramatic changes in immigrant 
ebgibility for basic safety-net services. The ensuing result of this new law was to 
force immigrants to naturalize — even if they aren't currently receiving benefits — be- 
cause the safety net may not be available to them or their children in times of crisis. 
Third, the 2.6 million immigrants who received legal status due to the 1986 Immi- 
gration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) legalization programs have now recently 
completed their residency requirements and are eligible to apply for citizenship. 


This year, we have heard allegations that the INS, in expediting the processing 
of record number of applications, has "dumb-downed" or cheapened the naturaliza- 
tion process. There have already been several suggestions that current requirements 
need to be modified to restore the allf^gedly lost integrity of the process. Rather than 
focusing on ways to continue to streamline and improve the naturalization process, 
however, these changes would in essence make the process more difficult for immi- 
grants to become U.S. citizens, including increasing the residency requirements and 
eliminating outside administration of the English and civics examination. We would 
like to note that, in contrast with immigration law and even the Internal Revenue 
Code, the naturalization process has maintained a statutory stability throughout the 

41-503 97-11 


years; in fact, the five-year residency reqviirement has not changed since 1801, 
Thomas Jefferson's first year in office. 

As to outside testing, while there have been some isolated charges of fraud in the 
administration of the standardized civics test, they have consisted of agencies in- 
volved in the natviraUzation process as a profit-making venture. The not-for-profit 
community, which assists citizenship applicants as a community service and civic 
activity, has an unsullied reputation for assisting thousands of applicants with the 
process through legitimate means. Efforts to reduce fraud should be aimed where 
the fraud occurs — at those organizations making money off the naturalization proc- 
ess — without undermining civic and community organizations which assist new citi- 
zens as a public service. We believe that the INS's recently released requirements 
to strengthen existing procedures will assure a more vigilant monitoring of the six 
testing entities and their affiliates. For many immigrants, the ability to take the 
civics test at a community-based organization or community college in their neigh- 
borhood makes applying for naturalization a less intimidating process. 

NCLR's 1991 report offered several recommendations on ways to improve the nat- 
uraUzation rates in the Hispanic community and make the naturalization process 
more efficient. Some of these included streamlining the naturalization process 
through the creation of a centralized and standardized citizenship examination, is- 
suance of guidelines to examiners to eliminate undue examiner discretion, and en- 
suring effective hearings through which failures based on unreasonable exams can 
be reversed; successful implementation of administrative natvu-alization, including 
taking advantage of the opportunity this system offers to reduce backlogs; and con- 
ducting effective outreach efforts, in conjunction with community-based organiza- 
tions, to inform individuals of their eligibility, as well as to eliminate the fear of 
the process prevalent in the immigrant community and to debunk some of the popu- 
lar mjiihs regarding natiiralization. 

The INS also should continue to develop joint private-sector citizenship programs 
and work closely with those organizations who have ties with the immigrant com- 
munity, including unions, corporations, and community-based organizations. For ex- 
ample, through its year-long Citizenship USA initiative, the INS has been successful 
in establishing partnerships with local officials and community organizations to pro- 
vide better information and assistance to potential citizens, and increase community 
involvement. These partnerships have also allowed the INS to conduct interviews 
in community sites, thereby decreasing "no-shows" and making applicants more 
comfortable with the interview process. 

None of NCLR's recommendations to improve the naturalization process has sug- 
gested that the naturalization process be made easier. Yet we believe that as a serv- 
ice agency, the INS needs to focus not only on the enforcement of U.S. immigration 
laws at the border or the workplace, but the promotion of naturalization among eli- 
gible legal permanent residents, along with an efficient naturalization process. In 
the past, neither the agency itself nor Congress has placed much emphasis on the 
naturalization component of the INS, choosing to appropriate a disproportionate 
amount of money to enforcement activities rather than the adjudication of natu- 
ralization applications. The appointment of Doris Meissner as INS Commissioner, 
however, has resulted in the INS placing a greater priority on naturalization, which 
had been neglected for too long. TTie launching of Citizenship USA, while relatively 
modest in compjirison to nationwide demand, has reduced the wsiiting period to six 
months in the five target cities with the greatest need, as well as several other cities 
with smaller but significant backlogs. 

In short, the public is not served well by unreasonable backlogs, lost applications, 
arbitrary examinations and interviews, and other problems which have plagued the 
citizenship process for far too long. INS must be encouraged, rather than attacked, 
in its efforts to improve and make the process efficient. Can anyone imagine having 
to wait six months for a drivers' license or new Social Security card? If this were 
to occur, the pubUc would be justifiably enraged and demand that the government 
take immediate steps to reduce the backlog. 


There have always existed distinct differences between the benefits accorded to 
U.S. citizens as opposed to noncitizens. First of all, for nearly a quarter of a century, 
immigration law has contained a provision under which immigrants have their 
sponsor's income "deemed" to them for a period of time to determine eligibility for 
the three major federal programs, including what was Aid to Families with Depend- 
ent Children (AFDC), food stamps, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Under 
this deeming process, legal permanent residents had to prove that they would not 
become a public charge during their first three to five years in the U.S. The welfare 


reform law, however, changed this longstanding provision and bars legal immi- 
grants' from accessing, with few exceptions, federally-funded means-tested pro- 
grams, and gives states the option to bar legal immigrants from receiving state- 
funded benefits. Legal immigrants are now barred from receiving public benefits 
until citizenship, or if they can prove they have worked in the U.S. for 10 years. 

Other differences include giving U.S. citizens greater access to immigrant visas 
for their family members than permanent residents. They are the only group, for 
example, who can obtain visas for their spouses and unmarried minor children al- 
most immediately, and who have the right to petition for their married children, 
parents, and siblings. Permanent residents, on the other hand, can only petition for 
their spouses and unmarried children and must do so through a preference system 
subject to numerical limits which have caused huge backlogs in recent years. Ob- 
taining citizenship also expands a person's employment opportunities as certain gov- 
ernment and security-sensitive jobs, along with some licensed professions in the pri- 
vate sector, are open only to U.S. citizens. Certain forms of financial aid, such as 
Reserve Officer Training Corp (ROTC) scholarships and some private scholarships, 
are available only to citizens. 

The other benefits to being a U.S. citizen, while less tangible but more meaning- 
ful, are the right to vote and the right to hold elective office. Hispanic immigrants 
realize that this ability to vote correlates with the ability to resolve problems affect- 
ing their community, and increases their chances of wielding political clout over 
their elected representatives at all levels. Moreover, NCLR truly believes that in- 
creasing the rate of naturalization within the Hispanic community would improve 
the quality of life for Hispanics by giving them a stronger voice in the U.S. political 
process. Minimizing the growth of a disenfranchised population truly benefits the 
entire nation. 


NCLR welcomes a reasoned discussion of the value of citizenship and the entire 
naturalization process. Yet we must note that recent attacks on the naturalization 
process and claims that the Clinton Administration's Citizenship USA initiative is 
politically driven are being led by immigration restrictionists with a clear anti-immi- 
grant bent. These individuals and organizations began their onslaught by initially 
attacking the undocumented, then moved on to legal immigrants, successfully ob- 
taining unreasonable restrictions on immigrant access to publicly-funded programs 
and nearly securing severe cuts in legal immigration itself. 

They are now assailing immigrants who are naturalizing — the only group left to 
attack — questioning not only their reasons for wanting to become U.S. citizens, but 
their patriotism and allegiance to this country. 

NCLR believes, however, that there is more to the current attacks on the citizen- 
ship process than simply concern about fraud and the alleged cheapening of existing 
standards. There is no denying that some politicians are uncomfortable with the fact 
that so many of the new citizens are ethnic minorities. The clamor that these citi- 
zens are not like those of the past has led to insinuations that the concept of citizen- 
ship is no longer revered, and that legal immigrants will become citizens to receive 
welfare benefits. Clearly, some long-term residents will naturalize as a response to 
the recently-enacted weljfare law in order to ensure that, in case of an accident or 
other calamity, their families will not be lefl to starve. One can hardly blame those 
who will pursue the only rational alternative which the political process has made 
available to them to protect themselves. However, it is inaccurate to suggest that 
immigrants are naturalizing to preserve benefits that only small numbers of them 
actually use. Politicians looking for an easy explanation for high naturalization 
rates would be better served by listening to immigrants' anger directed at their own 
rhetoric. They are interested in voting; further delaying the process may have an 
impact on this November's election, but not on those which follow. 

Moreover, those making the accusations that the Clinton Administration's motives 
in expediting the naturalization process are politically motivated should realize that 
immigrant communities are not necessarily allied with one party or another. For ex- 
ample, it is difficult to credibly argue that new citizens in cities such as Miami or 
in Orange County are registering as Democrats. I would counsel elected officials to 
court new citizens and assist them in becoming active participants in our political 
system, rather than disparage them. 

At the NCLR 1995 Annual Conference held in Dallas, Texas, now-vice presidential 
candidate Jack Kemp passionately declared that "the unity of our country is not cre- 
ated by whether we are Anglo Saxon or European or Latino or African or Asian or 
Native American. * * * To be an American is not to be * * * a certain color, but 
to beUeve those self-evident truths [of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness]. 


This is the genius of our nation." Let us not allow the sustained anti-immigrant sen- 
timent prevalent throughout this country to continue to divide us even further by 
inserting it into a dialogue of citizenship. Hispanics, whether we are natvir£ilized or 
native-bom citizens, have always revered the principles of democracy on which this 
country was founded. We cherish and wholeheartedly accept the responsibilities that 
come with U.S. citizenship, which includes holding elected officials accovmtable for 
their actions. 

Senator Simpson. Thank you very much. 

I would at this point also like to insert into the record the pre- 
pared testimony of Lawrence Fuchs of Brandeis University. 
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fuchs follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Lawrence H. Fuchs, Co-chair, U.S. Commission on 

Immigration Reform 

In my written testimony, I try to provide a framework for examining the evolution 
of the essential characteristics of American nationality and citizenship. In the time 
I have now, I will make a few specific recommendations and general comments on 
strengthening the meaning of citizenship. 

There are usually three quahties that make up a sense of nationhood: a founding 
mjiih that explains the origins and purpose of the nation; a compelling narrative 
that tells a story about the core values that emanate from that myth and the heroes 
and heroines of that story; and finally, rituals which remind the people of that story, 
embodying the myth, its values, its heroes and heroines, and symbols. 

Founding myths, accounting for the origins of a nation and explaining its destiny, 
usually are tribal (based on genealogy or blood), as with the Abraham story in the 
Old Testament (God told Abraham to create a new nation), or the tale of Theseus, 
the mythical Athenian king who defeated the horrible Minotaur of Crete and united 
twelve small independent states of Attica, making Athens the capital of the new 
state. The foundation of Rome was attributed to Romulus, son of Mars, the god of 
war, who, after having been raised with his brother Remus by a she-wolf, conquered 
the Sabines and built a new city on the Tiber River on the spot where their Uves 
had been saved. Japan, according to its traditional foiuiding myth, was established 
because a favorite descendent of the Sun Goddess created the Japanese islands and 
became the first Emperor, from whom all emperors are descended. 

Early in its history, spokesmen for the new American nation explained that the 
U.S. was created as a nation in which individual liberty, opportunity, and reward 
for individual achievement would prosper. This powerful new myth provided an ide- 
ological rationalization for the selnsh interest early settlers had in recruiting Euro- 
pean immigrants to claim the land, fight Indians, and later to work in the mines 
and factories. It became the founding myth of a new political culture, uniting white 
Americans from different religious and national backgrounds, and later others who 
were not white, in a sense of shared American nationhood. Belief in the myth moti- 
vated Americans to create new political institutions and practices which Alexis de 
TocqueviUe, an early nineteenth centiiry French visitor, saw as encoiu-aging a patri- 
otism that grew "by the exercise of civil rights." What he called the "patriotism of 
a republic" was based on the premise that it is possible to interest men and women 
in the welfare of their country by making them participants in its government and 
by so doing to enlist their enthusiastic loyalty to a national community. Here, the 
feeUng of "we-ness" that is usually based on similar physical characteristics, lan- 
guage, or religion (or a combination of them) was replaced by a belief in the myth 
itself and the values, heroes and heroines, symbols and rituals revolving around the 
idea of freedom. It was this civic culture that replaced a more tribal culture as a 
basis of nationhood and appeared to teach men and women to work together with 
those "who otherwise would have always lived apart." 

The myth and its values were embodied in a narrative, beginning with the Amer- 
ican Revolution. The narrative tells of the struggle to enlarge freedom for an in- 
creasing number of persons regardless of their national origin, color, or religion. It 
recalls the Civil War, the Second World War against Nazism, the civil rights revolu- 
tion of the 1960s and 1970s, the continuing immigrant saga, and the successful de- 
fense of freedom and democracy against the Soviet Union and its totalitarian system 
of government. 

This American story about the struggle for freedom — freedom sought, freedom 
thwarted, freedom won and freedom enlarged — includes oppression, exploitation, 
and terrible harm against those whom the insiders thought of as outsiders. But the 
main story line is clesir: a long term expansion of freedom — a continual rebirth of 
freedom (to use Lincoln's words), although often interrupted. That sense of continu- 


ing renewal is reflected in part in the slogans of the twentieth century activist presi- 
dents, such as "The New Freedom" (Wilson); 'The New Deal" (Franklin D. Roo- 
sevelt); "The Fair Deal" (Truman); 'The New Frontier" (Kennedy); 'The Great Soci- 
ety" (Johnson); and "The New Beginning" (Reagan). The American story relies heav- 
ily on texts that are often treated as though they are sacred: the Declaration of 
Independence; the Constitution, and especially its Bill of Rights and Fourteenth 
Amendment; Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Second Inaugural Address and Mar- 
tin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. 

The preamble to the Constitution calls upon Americans to "form a more perfect 
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common 
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to our- 
selves and our Posterity. * * *" More than any other nation, Americans have em- 
phasized liberty as its central value. Liberty was grounded in what they called the 
equality of every person under Grod, a belief asserted in the Declaration of Independ- 

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men [and women] are created 
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, 
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. 

By emphasizing equal rights in a nation that authorized slavery, the founders in- 
troduced a profound moral ambiguity which some argue has not yet been entirely 
resolved. The idea of equality became as compelling as that of liberty in American 
political discourse, but its meaning is less clear. Liberty meant freedom from gov- 
ernment interference to the founders and still retains essentially that meaning. But 
what does equality mean? Does it mean social equality, equality under the laws, 
equality of opportunity, equality of condition — or some combination of them? Equal- 
ity, in all its many meanings, took on great significance in the rhetoric of public 
Ufe and social discourse and even in family life in America. 

The American narrative is also about the tension between the values of liberty 
and equality. Much of the debate in American domestic politics is about society's ob- 
ligation to promote equality of opportunity for those who are bom to inherently un- 
equal conditions. Those who are suspicious about public policies that attempt to do 
that point out that equality of opportunity implies the opportunity to compete with 
and rise above others and to be rewarded for one's successful efforts. The opposite 
view holds that without government intervention, equality of opportunity can have 
little meaning for those bom to economically or otherwise disadvantaged cir- 
cumstances. However many Americans differ in the debate as to how they should 
promote equality of opportunity, most of them deeply cherish equality of opportunity 
as an American value. 

In recent years, the political debate has focused increasingly on the role of govern- 
ment in providing equality of opportunity through policies that give particular rec- 
ognition to the claims of members of groups who have suffered (and many say con- 
tinue to suffer) restricted opportunity because they are women, African-Americans, 
or members of other designated minority groups. The very fact that disadvantage 
is presumed to be a condition that inheres in membership in such groups regardless 
of one's individual circumstances (health, wealth, education of parents, family situa- 
tion) has given new meaning to the question of the relationship of the pluribus to 
the unum. Group membership has become an increasingly powerful way of defining 
individual identity, and public policies now go beyond equality under the law in rec- 
ognizing gender, color, and national origin as a basis for what is usually called af- 
firmative action regardless of individual circumstances. In addition, some members 
of groups designated as disadvantaged claim a status of inherited victimization that 
deepens their sense of grievance against the political and economic system that they 
see as dominated by white males. As a result, much of the current debate about 
multiculturalism revolves around their insistence on having their separateness ac- 
knowledged and affirmed in public policy generally, including education. Some, in- 
cluding even white males, reject the idea of a common culture, even a common polit- 
ical ciSture, as long as members of certain groups cannot show aggregate (group) 
results in economic, educational, and political attainment equal to that of white 

Others see in this view of American life a danger to the value of liberty itself. 
They ask what fi-eedom means if not the freedom to assert one's individuality re- 
gardless of inherited group status. What does it mean luiless one is free to cross 
group boundaries regardless of one's color or inherited religion or nationality? What, 
they ask, will happen under the strains of increasing diversity if those who live, 
work and vote in this country begin to think of themselves first and foremost as 
members of separate groups and not as Americans? 


My own view is more optimistic than these questions imply. I agree with those 
who believe that the tension between the claims of the pluribus and the require- 
ments of the unum can be resolved in a nation that values both liberty and equality, 
but only if we pay at least as much attention to the requirements of the unum as 
to the histories, sensibilities, and claims of the pluribus. 

I think that serious scholars of this subject of Americanization are in virtually 
luianimous agreement that civic virtue and good citizenship in the United States 
has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, despite the burgeoning claims of polemi- 
cists to the contrary. That conclusion is demonstrated overwhelmingly by the evi- 
dence during these past 250 years. To argue that whites or Anglo-Americans have 
been more devoted to principles of liberty and justice for all flies in the face of the 

American values are accessible to anyone, regardless of race, religion or ancestral 
background, precisely because our most important principle is the equal protection 
of the laws for all, regardless of race, religion or national origin. That is the genius 
of the system, which must be protected and nourished. 

A robust idea of American citizenship depends on a widespread understanding 
and appreciation and even celebration of the American constitutional system, its 
symbols and rituals, its heroes and heroines. 

I believe there are several things that can be done to encourage that robust sense 
of citizenship for native-bom and naturalized citizens. Here are six of them: 

• First, an all-out commitment to the renewal of American civic education in our 
schools and communities; 

• Second, a steady modification and ultimate abandonment of the dangerous no- 
tion of group rights as embodied in the harder forms of affirmative action, including 
abandonment by the year 2010 of the current racial categories in the U.S. census; 

• Third, an all-out commitment to use the best pedagogic methods available to 
make certain that no one graduates ft-om eighth grade without being able to speak, 
read and write English effectively; 

• Fourth, an expanded commitment for English language training for adults who 
need and want it; 

• Fifth, a change in our naturaUzation oath and naturalization requirements, 
making the oath simpler and more appropriate, and making the requirements more 

• Sixth, a stronger commitment than ever to making equality of the laws and 
equality of opportunity real for the poorest and otherwise most vulnerable of our 

What do I mean by a commitment to civic education? I believe the Secretary of 
Education should call a conference of state educational leaders to examine the possi- 
bility of developing a common core civic curriculum. I don't mean a curriculum just 
for one particular grade level in a civics course, although that could and should be 
a part of it. I mean that our schools should teach the essentials of American history 
and constitutional principles repeatedly at different grade levels in appropriate 
ways. I also mean that the Pledge of Allegiance should be recited and discussed. 
What does the goal of liberty and justice for all mean? What do we mean by major- 
ity rule and individual rights? 

I mean putting the pictures of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Frank- 
lin Delano Roosevelt back on the schoolroom walls and teaching how their roles in 
the Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II relate to the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, Lincoln's Gettysbxirg Address, and FDR's Four Freedoms in the American 
search to expand the meaning of liberty and justice for all. 

I mean a curriculum that nourishes civic virtue in action by including community 
service, as a number of schools now do. I mean a curriculum that encourages all 
Americans, not just those in the schools, to think about the meaning of Independ- 
ence Day, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, and Martin Luther King's birthday. And 
whatever happened to I am an American Day? Let's bring it back. What a wonderful 
occasion for naturalization ceremonies, community service, and local competition for 
young essayists to say what being an American means to them. 

Throughout most of American history, Independence Day, July 4th, was the most 
important national holiday. Different ethnic groups often combined their celebration 
of American independence and the values of American life in their own particular 
way. In the 1880s in Worcester, Mass., the Ancient Order of the Hibernians, an 
Irish nationalist society, held a picnic on July 4th in which the exuberance of the 
Irish served both as a preservation of Irish customs and a defense of American free- 
doms. Independence Day in Worcester in the 1890s attracted a large proportion of 
the Swedish-American population, who began with services at one of eight Swedish 
Protestant churches and ended at the picnic with patriotic speeches, sometimes in 
Swedish. All the ethnic groups of Worcester used Independence Day as an oppor- 


tunity to express their own ethnic identity even as they celebrated American free- 

As new immigrant-ethnic groups claimed an American identity for themselves, a 
great many Anglo-Saxon Protestants, particularly in New England, thought of Inde- 
pendence Day as their special holiday. When President Ulysses S. Grant and key 
members of his cabinet joined the centennial celebration of the beginning of the 
American revolution at Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1875, 
they listened to speeches made only by illustrious Anglo-Americans, including some 
of the great poets of New England. The master of ceremonies of the festive day in 
Lexington reminded the audience that all of the foreign heroes at Lexington and 
Concord had English names. 

Then, the Anglo-Americans, especially in New England, thought of themselves as 
the charter members of the Republic. Americans from other backgrounds were rel- 
ative newcomers, and persons of color were still treated essentially as outsiders by 
those who held governmental and economic power, despite the Thirteenth, Four- 
teenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. With a few years after the 
centennial, their position as outsiders would be more sharply defined. Blacks in the 
South would be subjugated, for the most part, to a segregated rural working class — 
sharecroppers, for the most part. Chinese laborers would be excluded from immi- 
grating to the United States, and an Act was passed in 1887 by the Congress to 
break up native American Indian lands and assimilate the Indians. 

One hundred years later, the bicentennial of the Revolution was celebrated by em- 
phasizing American diversity. That was also true of the centennial of the Statue of 
Liberty, the bicentennial of the Constitution, and the celebration of the restoration 
of Ellis Island. Ethnicity had become central to the American story — to the way 
Americans looked at themselves and presented themselves to the world. On the mall 
of the nation's capital on July 4th, 1983, the National Symphony was conducted by 
a Russian refugee, Mstlav Rostropovich, who played the distinctive American music 
of Jewish-American composers George Gershwin and Aaron Copeland, arias from 
Porgy and Bess sung by the great American black singer Leontyne Price. "A Lincoln 
Portrait" was narrated by the black American baseball player Willie Stargell. New- 
comer Americans from at least two dozen Asian, African, and Latin American coun- 
tries tapped and drummed to "The Stiirs and Stripes Forever," composed by the Por- 
tuguese-American John Philip Sousa. 

The Fourth of July emphasizes national independence and personal freedom. 
Thanksgiving, which has become the other major holiday of America's civic culture, 
also offers an opportunity for celebrating e pluribus unwn. The theme of Thanks- 
giving, proclaimed by George Washington in 1789 and again by President Lincoln 
in 1863 as a national holiday memorializing the 1621 feast of thanks given by Pil- 
grims (who did not call themselves Pilgrims or wear tall hats or black suits with 
wide collars or eat turkey) at Plymouth, still retained a more or less religious appre- 
ciation of the benefits of ft-eedom and opportunity in the U.S. But in the 1970s and 
1980s, Thanksgiving became another occasion for the celebration of ethnic diversity. 
In 1973, the New York Times told of an Italian family who ate a Thanksgiving din- 
ner as they imagined Columbus might have had. A Russian-American family fea- 
tured a Russian dessert made from cranberries; a Chinese-American family ate Pe- 
king Duck instead of turkey; and an Austrian-American family feasted on braised 
turkey and white beans. A Boston Globe story in 1985 told of Cambodians, Vietnam- 
ese, and Laotians celebrating Thanksgiving at a feast sponsored by the Jewish Voca- 
tional Service. There, the refiigee families ate fiery nuk chau sauce and cha gio egg 
rolls along with their roast turkey, cranberry sauce, and pumpkin pie. 

By 1986, a writer for the New York Times concluded that "as an American holi- 
day. Thanksgiving's universality must lie in its ability to welcome succeeding gen- 
erations of immigrants to these shores." She wrote of Haitians, Barbadians, Jamai- 
cans, Panamanians, and Trinidadians sitting down with family members for dinners 
that merged the ciilinary traditions of their homeland cultures with those of the 
more traditional Thanksgiving. "For me," reported one second-generation American 
of West Indian background, "Thanksgiving is a mixing of the black-American tradi- 
tions with the Caribbean." 

A civic education curriculum does not denigrate ethnic and religious diversity in 
the United States. Far from it. It honors it and even celebrates it. But it would not 
permit, as now occurs in many universities and some high schools, the encourage- 
ment of ethnocentrism in the name of multiculturalism. 

I will skip a discussion on my second point — the question of group rights — since 
I have written about it extensively elsewhere. Of course, I will answer any questions 
you have. There has been a tendency in American public discourse to speak of group 
rights as though they were civil rights. Civil rights apply to individuals. We have 


no place in our constitutional system for group rights, except for native American 
Indians and possibly ethnic Hawaiians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. 

The importance of English seems self evident. The more linguistically capable 
Americans are, the better. But English is a must for anyone to participate substan- 
tially in the national political community or to enter the competition for opportuni- 
ties in a vast continental and global economy. English is an important sign of na- 
tional identity. My immigrant, orphan, illiterate grandmother could not write Eng- 
lish or any other language until the day she died, and she was a magnificent human 
being who raised eight dedicated, patriotic Americans. But her limited knowledge 
of English restricted her chances — she never held any job except that of maid — and 
cut her off from many aspects of American life. We need a national volunteer effort 
not just to teach children English, as called for by President Clinton, but also to 
expand English teaching resources for adult immigrants and refugees. 

The next recommendation — improving the naturalization test — is one I have not 
written or testified about before. The present naturalization oath includes archaic 
language which takes away from its meaning. It reads: 

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure 
all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, 
of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support 
and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against 
all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear truth and allegiance to the 
same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by 
the law; that I will perform non-combatant service in the armed forces of the 
United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national 
importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take 
this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so 
help me God. 

It is amazing that the oath has held up as long as it has. But surely we can do 
something about such archaic language as "abjure" and "fidelity to any foreign 
prince, potentate. * * *" One possibiUty would be: 

I, (name), take this solemn oath (or "make this solemn affirmation) freely and 
without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. My allegiance is to the 
United States of America above any other nation. I promise to support and 
honor the Constitution and laws of my new country and their principles of lib- 
erty and justice for all. I pledge to defend them by force of arms, noncombatant 
military service, or civilian work of national importance if necessary. 

One might suspect that I am in favor of making naturalization easier by rec- 
ommending a change in language. That is not the case. I want the naturalization 
oath to be luiderstood. I am concerned about any tendency to reduce further the 
civic education and English language requirements for naturalization. There is con- 
siderable evidence that the naturalization ceremony, when done with dignity, stimu- 
lates feelings of patriotic loyalty for newcomer citizens around basic values of liberty 
and equality of opportunity. Newspaper accounts of naturaUzation swearing-in cere- 
monies repeatedly tell of the enthusiasm with which these new citizens embrace 
them. A Russian Jewish refugee from Kiev, who was one of ninety-seven immigrants 
from twenty-eight countries sworn in as U.S. citizens at the Monticello home of 
Thomas Jefferson, told a television reporter after his naturalization ceremony: "I be- 
lieve the most important thing that brought me to this country is the dream about 
the future of my kids, to grow them in a free country, to be independent, to be what- 
ever they want. * * * The United States. My land of opportunity." Another immi- 
grant, this one from Vietnam, told a reporter after the same ceremony: "* ♦ * this 
is the best place * * * this is the best opportunity, in America." In El Paso, Texas, 
a new Trinidadian- American said: "We feel there are more opportunities here for us 
and our family. * * *" 

Freedom to work and make a Uving is one of the inducements to become an Amer- 
ican citizen. But the speeches made by those who preside over naturalization cere- 
monies usually stress the importance of other freedoms. At many ceremonies, natu- 
redized citizens are given a copy of the Bill of Rights. And many new citizens re- 
spond. A newly naturalized Cuban-American told reporters that becoming an Amer- 
ican is the greatest thing "because here we can have what everyone should have, 
and that means our human rights. In short, freedom." 

We need to mobilize voliuiteer resources to support the naturahzation work of the 
INS. I believe that with presidential leadership, with the cooperation of governors, 
mayors, civic and service organizations, universities, corporations, and labor unions, 
we can process naturalization expeditiously without demeaning its significance. 


Panels of distinguished Americans from various walks of life can be enlisted as ac- 
credited volunteers to participate in managing naturalization ceremonies. 

I also believe we should consider requiring a variety of standardized written civics 
and history tests in English for passing of the naturalization exam. This would cut 
down the time used in oral interviews and elevate the significance of passing the 
exam by making standards more uniform. Exceptions could be made for compas- 
sionate reasons, as they are now. 

I will conclude by saying that if people living in poverty had heard my remarks 
up to this point, they would be likely to think them utterly irrelevant to their own 
lives. Jacob Riis examined the relationship of civic virtue and citizenship to poverty 
in 1902 in his book "The Battle with the Slum." He wrote that where the slum flour- 
ishes unchallenged in the cities, "citizen virtue," as he called it, is starved. It is not 
enough, he wrote that where the slum flourishes unchallenged in the cities, "citizen 
virtue," as he called it, is starved. It is not enough, he wrote, to repeat that all men 
are created equal. 

So let us remember that citizenship does not floiuish in mean streets where un- 
employment, drive-by shootings and crack cocaine are widespread. Nor is civic vir- 
tue helped by a hostile reception to immigrants. It does nothing to cultivate a robust 
ideal of citizenship to categorically deny safety net welfare benefits to legjd immi- 
grants who need them through no fault of their own or of their sponsors. Nor will 
civic virtue be promoted by the denial of a public school education to the children 
of illegal aliens, or by the modification of birth right citizenship. 

Why do we care so much about citizenship in the U.S.? I think it is because we 
were the first nation to say that citizenship is not a question of complying with the 
wishes of the sovereign or a matter of blood. It is entirely voluntary. No government 
can force it on you or take it away unless you lied to get it. It is a matter of our 
fi-ee will. That revolutionary idea is at the heart of our experiment in self govern- 
ment. We believe that ordinary women and men, regardless of their ancestry, can 
make a democratic republic work. This is not just an abstract issue: Too much blood 
has been spilt in order to make this idea a reality to everyone bom in this country, 
regardless of race ancestry, religion, or economic circumstances. 

Some of my friends are extremely worried about the fact that our constitutional 
system permits dual citizenship. I urge them to keep in mind that loyalty cannot 
be compelled. The loyalty of subjects may be compelled, but not that of totally free 
citizens. The power to win loyalty in this culture of voluntary citizenship has been 
demonstrated many times in American history. Witness the extraordinary record of 
Japanese-Americans in the 442nd regimental combat team in World War II. Note 
the story of Sergeant Jimmy Lopez, one of the American hostages held by Iran in 
1980, who wrote on the wall where he was imprisoned: "Viva el rojo, bianco e azul!" 
(long live the red, white and blue). TeU your grandchildren the story of Guy 
Gabaldon a Mexican-American who won the silver star in the Second World War. 
Raised in East Los Angeles by a Japanese-American family who taught him to 
speak Japanese fluently, he won the medal for persuading 1,000 Japanese soldiers 
to surrender during the battle for the island of Saipan. 

These stories illustrate the strength of our civic culture. But they do not mean 
we can be complacent. The civil culture must be nourished. Attention must be paid. 
And Senator Simpson, you should be congratulated for doing just that. 

Senator Simpson. Ms. Geyer, in your new book, you describe 
many undesirable changes in citizenship and its significance and in 
the naturaUzation practices. One of the fascinating factors or play- 
ers in this process has been various U.S. foundations, especially the 
Ford Foundation. Could you give the subcommittee your thoughts 
on the role these organizations have played? 

Ms. Geyer. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I got into the research for my 
book, which I have been working on for about 4 years and I have 
been doing it in my columns for many years, I was, frankly, sur- 
prised by a lot of the things I found, because as you know, I work 
overseas largely, so I had not studied a lot of the new structures 
in America so much. It was actually with two of the members of 
Mr. Yzaguirre's group, Mr. Kamisaki and another gentleman, in 
the early 1980's, I said, "Well, where are your members," and they 
said, "Well, we do not have any members." And I said, "Well, where 


do you get your money," and they said, "Well, we get it from the 
Ford Foundation." 

I was kind of amazed at this, so I began to look into it and I 
found that, of course, when the Ford Foundation turned far left in 
the 1970's, Henry Ford II left the foundation with a very famous 
letter and enormous amounts of moneys went into the founding of, 
particularly of MALDEF, one of the Hispanic American lobbies. 
This is all perfectly legal. There is nothing immoral about it or un- 

But what is interesting and what Americans do not understand 
is that MALDEF, completely Ford Foundation-supported, then be- 
came the activist advocacy group that fought against every type of 
immigration control, against English as the primary language of 
the country, and against what I call the citizenship issues or the 
"who belongs" issues. They did this through the courts. They by- 
passed the democratic system. So you have lateral funding to 
groups who then use the courts to defeat questions that I believe 
should be decided democratically. 

Just one last point, sir. You may say to me, well, but they rep- 
resent the American Hispanic American community, but they do 
not. They do not represent them at all. Every single survey and 
study, including my trips down to the border, particularly the bor- 
der communities in Texas, shows that 90 percent — upwards of 90 
percent — have nothing to do with these groups. They do not like 
them. They want border controls. They want immigration controls. 

And I must say, in my times on the Texas-Mexican border with 
Hispanic American judges. Border Patrol chiefs, the first two to 
control the border, to begin to, Guste Lavenia and Sylvester Reyes 
[phonetic], they are the most patriotic community I have ever seen. 
So we have here an odd, laterally funded new structure in this 
country. There are many of them, but this is the one I studied. 

Senator SiMPSON. That is very interesting, because I remember 
Congressman Mazzoli and I finally visited with Frank Thomas of 
the Ford Foundation years ago and said, "Do you ever give money 
to the other side on this issue," and he was a bit embarrassed. He 
was not defensive, but he was embarrassed. And I think they fi- 
nally coughed up a few thousand bucks for somebody without hav- 
ing the credentials, being that it was almost just open immigration 
and anyone that was on the other side was racist or bigoted or 
mean spirited, and that, indeed, was something I personally saw. 
I think Frank Thomas tried personally to make some changes there 
because he was startled as we showed him where that money was 
going and did go. 

Dan Stein, as you know, political philosopher Michael Walzer 
stated that the country should not allow the immigration of indi- 
viduals unless the country is willing to allow these individuals ulti- 
mately to naturalize and become full members of the political com- 
munity. I understand that to mean not that there should be no rea- 
sonable naturalization requirements, but rather that we should not 
admit anyone if they are unhkely to be able to meet the require- 
ments, because of their own situation or because of circumstances 
in this country — for example, and these are my examples, the lack 
of incentive to learn English or legal immigration levels that are 
so high that immigrants do not assimilate. That is a word that has 


been used, and is not politically incorrect, not evil. Barbara Jordan 
used "assimilate" and "Americanization." 

What do you believe should be the relationship between immigra- 
tion policy and naturalization policy? 

Mr. Stein. Well, I think there is, in a sense, a reciprocity to the 
two factors. They certainly should be considered as interrelated, 
that if, as I started out with that old joke, real old, about having 
to change the educational standards, if it becomes clear that in 
order to successfully move the new potential citizens through a nat- 
uralization process you have to render the naturalization process 
meaningless, then you have to consider the selection criteria by 
which you are admitting immigrants. 

I think this goes to the overall educational levels of the immi- 
grants. Sure, 100 or 150 years ago we may have needed unskilled 
or less-educated immigrants for the industrial revolution, but when 
you are admitting millions, tens of millions of immigrants who are 
illiterate in any language and are asking them to move up the lad- 
der to citizenship, it is pretty difficult to ask them within 5 years 
to have a conversant knowledge of the English language. 

So I think that, surely, the question of numbers and the edu- 
cational attainment of those coming in has a bearing on citizenship 
and the two have to be considered within the context of one an- 

Senator SiMPSON. Raul, you and I have batted each other around 
for 18 years, more or less, less, perhaps. I remember well when 
your group was not going to allow me to come before them and you 
said, "Oh, yes, you are," and you and I went at it. Of course, you 
did not stop them from cheering more for you than they did for me, 
but [Laughter.] 

I remember that very well. It was something that I appreciated 
because I was able to express myself before your forum when oth- 
ers of your forum did not wish me to do that. 

But I have heard you are a man of absolute passion and you give 
a tremendous emotional tug when you speak. I must say, I did not 
hear that witness say that Latin Americans were less worthy of be- 
coming immigrants. I thought his point was that he agreed with 
the various Latin American scholars that certain aspects of tradi- 
tional Latin American culture, which he said is changing, is not as 
conducive to economic and political development. Am I wrong on 
that point? 

Mr. YZAGUIRRE. First, let me thank you for your courage in at- 
tending our conference and debating me on this issue. 

Yes, I think you are wrong. I heard something very different. I 
heard both explicitly and implicitly the assertion. Why else would 
you bring up these so-called facts if somehow the implication or the 
end game was not to say that these are less worthy individuals 
than others? 

Senator SiMPSON. Well, I did not hear that that way. Then when 
you spoke of a waiting period of four or 5 years, I have been here 
18 years and I have never heard that. I know under Alan Nelson, 
the INS got the waiting period down to 6 months or less for all 
cities of the U.S. except Los Angeles and Miami, which were down 
to less than a year. It has gotten bad in the last couple of years 
because of the unprecedented number and the flood of applications. 


So, again, that, I think, is an alarming and an incorrect statistic, 
at least from my knowledge, cumulative knowledge as being in- 
volved with this subcommittee. 

Mr. YZAGUIRRE. We would be happy to present testimony backing 
up my assertion. Senator. 

Senator SiMPSON. I remember once you talked about having to 
carry a card when you were a child, and you and I got into that 
one. I know of no card that was ever carried by a child in Texas, 
So I know the power of your passion, but we have to stick with 
facts. And there is one fact at least that I do not want to ever 
change in my work here, that I have never spent any time doing 
political hearings. I have never spent any time as a nativist, big- 
oted, mean-spirited, racist person, ever. Any type of allusion to that 
with the conduct of my work would be truly offensive and met with 
the same kind of emotional passion as you so ably express. 

Mr. YZAGUIRRE. I respect that. Again, I stand by my comments. 

If I may. Senator, I would like to have an opportunity to respond 
to some of the earUer comments regarding my organization, if that 
would be appropriate. 

Senator Simpson. Oh, yes, but I think I will let Senator Kennedy 
go ahead and then we will certainly provide time for that, I assure 
you of that. 

Senator KENNEDY. Let me just very briefly, and then we will 
come to that, say that, Ms. Geyer, you are living in a very different 
America than I am living in. I see the immigrants who are anxious 
to embrace American ideals, witness the new citizens in my own 
State of Massachusetts and across the country. 

I see a naturalization process that is improving, though it still 
needs improvement. The so-called scandals are the exceptions, not 
the rule. To blow them out of proportion as you do, I think, cheap- 
ens the hard work of hundreds of thousands of new citizens to gain 
their citizenship. I agree that we need to do more to promote citi- 
zenship, to promote Americanization, as Barbara Jordan called it, 
but it is needed across the board, not just in our naturalization 
poUcies and programs. 

I see an America filled with committed ethnic and religious and 
community organizations who are dedicated to this country and 
work every day to help communities and neighborhoods. We heard 
one not long ago from Lowell, Massachusetts, that is just an out- 
standing organization. We have one today represented in the Coun- 
cil of La Raza. 

And I see an America that is proud of the 1965 Act. The 1965 
Act got rid of the national origin quota system that said that if you 
were from Portugal, there were 128 citizens who could come from 
Portugal in 1965, 30,000 from Ireland. Why? Because of the na- 
tional origin quota system. Yet the Asian Pacific triangle let less 
than 500 citizens come here to be reunited with their families. 
Why? Because they were from Asia. 

What the principal point of the 1965 Act has eliminated, the na- 
tional origin quota system and eliminated the Asian Pacific tri- 
angle and put limitations on countries. Now, we did not know we 
were going to get into a Vietnam War. We did not know the Korean 
War, the other kinds of pressures in other parts of the world that 


happened to change in terms of the numbers, but I must say to de- 
fend the previous position I find to be difficult myself to accept. 

I would just say, to the witnesses who say that the naturaliza- 
tion process is more lax today than in the past, there is room, obvi- 
ously, for the improvement, but, in fact, the process has greater in- 
tegrity today than it did 4 years ago. The texts are more standard- 
ized, less dependent on the individual INS officer. 

The atmosphere is more inviting. INS, normally known as an en- 
forcement agency, is working more and more with the community 
groups. It means that more qualified applicants are likely to pur- 
sue the citizenship. 

I heard you talk about the criminal background checks. They 
have been tightened up by the INS. Sure, there were some lapses 
in the weeks when it was moved from one system to another, but 
under the old system, the lapses would not even have been discov- 

So the INS, I know, is working now with outside experts to im- 
prove the English and civic tests, so we should see improvement 
next to them. I am not sajdng that there is not room for improve- 
ment, but I thought the general kind of characterization was par- 
ticularly harsh. 

I mention here the article that was in the paper not long ago 
where they gave the immigration test to high school students out 
of one State. I will put it in the record. 

[The information of Senator Kennedy follows:] 

[From the American Teacher, October 1995] 

U.S. Students Stumble on Citizenship Test 

Millions of yotingsters should feel blessed to be bom in the United States — par- 
ticularly since many of them don't understand U.S. institutions well enough to earn 

That finding comes courtesy of Tacoma, Wash., college instructor Greg Gourley, 
who recently gave more than 200 high school students in his community the same 
exam that immigrants take to gain U.S. citizenship. It covers basic — and we mean 
basic — U.S. history ("Whom did we fight in the Revolutionary War?"), civics ("What 
is the White House?") and current events ("Who is governor of your state?"). More 
than 90 percent of real-life applicants for citizenship pass the exam annually, re- 
ports Gourley, who teaches citizenship in continuing education classes at Highline 
Commiuiity College in suburban Tacoma. Yet only 50 percent of U.S. high school 
students Gfourley tested scored high enough to qualify for citizenship. 

The question high schoolers most frequently missed: "What is the supreme law 
of the United States?" The answer, of course, is "the Constitution"; but students 
filled in responses ranging from 'The Supreme Court" to the Republican's "Contract 
with America." Large numbers of students also didn't know that the president is 
the commander-in-chief, that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are 
known as the Bill of Rights, or that there are three independent branches in Amer- 
ican government. 

Gourley insists that the student test was not intended to be a "slam" against K- 
12 educaton — rather, it is "an indication that history offerings are not focused" on 
the major themes in American history. "Low reading levels also are a big part of 
the problem," he beheves. "A lot of kids are just reluctant to do the assigned reading 
in school." 

One bright spot, he noted, was the impact the exam seemed to have on immigrant 
students in the classes surveyed. "A lot of these kids walked a pretty tough road 
to get where they are, and many have parents who have actually taken this exam. 
That made them take it more seriously," Gourley observes. 

Senator Kennedy. Half the American high school seniors, U.S. 
students, stumble on citizenship tests. This comes from using the 
same test on high school students as the test the immigrants take 


to gain U.S. citizenship. Only 50 percent of U.S. high school stu- 
dents tested scored high enough to qualify for citizenship. 

If you can believe the question high schoolers most frequently 
miss, it is, what is the supreme law of the United States? The an- 
swer is the Constitution. Students filled in responses ranging from 
the Supreme Court to, listen to this, the Republicans' Contract 
With America. [Laughter.] 

Senator Simpson. That is written in. You wrote that in. 

Senator Kennedy. The point is that there is room, but, I mean, 
I have to take issue with the general characterization. 

Finally, I must say that I have known Frank Thomas for a num- 
ber of years, the head of Ford. I have listened a lot to him. Frank 
Thomas was a street person, grew up in Bedford Ste3rvesant, ran 
the first Bedford Ste3rvesant program out there, and the reason he 
was, he was a street person, went on to the Ford Foundation, fund- 
ing various groups. But you talk about a grassroots person that has 
been out in the streets running it, having some sense about it. I 
am sure there are some grants that he wished that he had not 
made, but I must say, I find difficulty in letting reference in terms 
of Frank Thomas go long without a brief comment about the serv- 
ice that he did provide for Ford. 

I think the support of grassroots organizations that are moving 
toward helping and assisting communities to move toward English, 
you know, we are used to the — in Massachusetts, the Know 
Nothings controlled the Massachusetts legislature in the 1850's. 
They proposed that it should take 25 years to become an American 
citizen. No Catholics could become an American citizen. That was 
their program. 

So we have rattled around with a lot of these issues for a long 
period of time and certainly they bear the review which I think the 
chairman has been trying to get. I will not take the time to quote 
Benjamin Franklin and his view about what some of the challenges 
were with regard to immigrants and a longer period of time. 

Interestingly enough, at the turn of the century, in high schools 
in my State, they provided 7 months' training with support from 
the Federal Government to be able to become citizens, provided by 
the Federal Government to help and assist them to be able to try 
and sort of deal with that. Now, we have La Raza is tr3dng to pro- 
vide English training. 

So before we start rapping on a lot of the organizations that have 
been trying to help and assist, which his organization — you may 
have a difference with the politics of it, and we all can have those 
kinds, but at least this is an organization that has seen an in- 
creased number of immigrants who want to learn English and also 
trying to do something with these English classes. It would seem 
to me that it would have been useful to have, with your historic 
perspective, some recommendations or suggestions about how those 
things might have been able to be done. 

Quite frankly, I would have appreciated that rather than the sort 
of wholesale condemnation. I do not think that that is a fair assess- 
ment and certainly is not consistent with the hearings that we 
heard before. There were some that pointed up some very legiti- 
mate lapses and I thought there were some very good answers on 
it, I think, that addressed some of those issues. 


Let me, because the time is moving on 

Ms. Geyer. May I respond? 

Senator Kennedy. All right. 

Ms. Geyer. With all due respect, Senator, in 1965, I have a 
quote from you in my book — it is in many books, actually — in which 
you said that the change in national origins would not see millions 
of illegal immigrants coming into the country. It would not change 
the essential ethnic mix of the country. All of that was palpably 

Also, I am not taking on the whole system, but I am saying that 
we have dumbed down and defined down our system to such an ex- 
tent that essentially there is no civic training for new Americans 
today. Also, we are heading toward another amnesty. So people 
who want to come here legally from all over the world are waiting 
and not being able to come. I just did want to answer those ques- 

Senator Kennedy. First of all, I supported the last amnesty. If 
you can find five Members of Congress that are advocating that 
today in the U.S. Senate, I would hope you would provide it, be- 

Ms. Geyer. Well, the people are pouring in, so 

Senator Kennedy. I am just telling you, you say we are moving 
toward it. You give me five members of the U.S. Senate that are 
advocating or have spoken to it. You cannot do it. So rather than 
establishing the scarecrows out there and measuring response to it, 
that is just not accurate. 

Second, you get me the quote about the illegals. I never said that 
about the illegals. 

Ms. Geyer. It is in my book. 

Senator Kennedy. What I had said, and the principal reason, 
any fair evaluation of the 1965 Act, was the elimination of the na- 
tional origin quota system and also putting a cap on different coun- 
tries, the hmitations. Now, I listened to you and Mr. Stein talk 
about those illiterates that are coming in, millions and millions 
under the 1965 Act. Do you know who they are? They are members 
of the families of American citizens. You did not even mention that. 
What is the principal criteria? It is reunification of families. There 
is no mention of that. 

Mr. Stein. Senator Kennedy, may I say something about this? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. This is not really a debate about you or 
I. You made a comment on it and I will be glad to hear briefly on 

Mr. Stein. I am not 

Senator SIMPSON. Just a moment, please. We will stay here until 
1 o'clock if we need to to visit and debate this. Senator Kennedy 
will have his opportunity in the 10-minute round and then there 
will be responses. I think there needs to be responses. And when 
Senator Kennedy is through with his questioning, I think each of 
you who wish to respond to his questions or to his comments can 
do so, as I would want to do. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I had intended after I made 
the comments to recognize what was the request earlier, and that 
is the statements that have been made about an organization, the 
representative here, and that he might be able to respond. I would 


like to get back to that and then the others can make whatever re- 
sponse that they would want to, if that is appropriate. 

Senator Simpson. Ted, let me say, too, that I do not know of any 
fellow Senators who are talking about amnesty, but I do know 
what those at the march on Washington were saying the other day. 
They were talking about a second amnesty. That is who is talking 
about it. They were talking about other things, too, a minimum 
wage of $7.14. These are the things that have to do with, as I un- 
derstand it, as it was portrayed — benefits from this country. 

Now, all I have ever tried to do is make unnecessary any more 
Proposition 187s. You talk about being tired, Raul. The people of 
America are just as tired on the other side, and we do not need 
Proposition 187s in other States. We do not need them in counties. 
We do not need them in regions of the United States. So that is 
where I am coming from. 

I am going to give Senator Kennedy some additional time for 
questions, but if you would direct your questions to the chair. You 
wish to respond to the comments about the Council of La Raza, is 
that correct, or was it MALDEF? 

Mr. YzAGUiRRE. That is correct. 

Senator Simpson. Was it MALDEF? 

Mr. YZAGUIRRE. I would be happy to respond. I am not in a posi- 
tion to defend MALDEF, but I can assure you that there have been 
some characterizations 

Senator Simpson. If you would please just address that. 

Mr. YZAGUIRRE [continuing]. Of my sister organization that are 
simply false. I would just appreciate if they had an opportunity for 
them to get something on the record. 

But let me respond to a couple of items that you mentioned, Sen- 
ator. You mentioned my earlier characterization of me having to 
carry a card in the border of Texas. For the benefit of those who 
may not understand your reference, I asserted in a previous testi- 
mony that when I was a young child in the State of Texas, having 
been bom in this country, having the Saidias [phonetic] came to 
Texas in the 1740's, before there was a United States or America. 

Nevertheless, I had to in a de facto way carry a blue card — not 
a green card, a blue card — that was a plastic card issued by the 
State of Texas that certified that I was bom in that State. I said 
my Anglo counterparts who might have only been in the country 
for the first generation did not have to do so and that is what I 
was trying to make reference to. Indeed, that did happen, and I 
thank you for calling attention to it. 

There have been some assertions made about the credibility of 
NCLR, whether or not it represents the Hispanic community. First 
of all, I would like an opportunity to insert into the record a re- 
sponse by Mr. Kamisaki to the article that was previously referred 
to. Some of the facts were wrong and I would like an opportunity 
to clarify that. 

[The information of Mr, Yzaguirre follows:] 


Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), 

Washington, DC, October 29, 1996. 

Hon. Alan K Simpson, 

Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Simpson: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate 
you on your retirement from the Senate after the many years that we have worked 
together on issues of immigration reform. You have consistently attempted to keep 
an open and cooperative working relationship with the full spectrum of participants 
in the immigration debate, and I appreciate your tireless efforts in addressing vital 
issues of concern. 

It is for this reason however, that I must address, for the record, certain misin- 
formation regarding the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 
discussed during the recent hearing held on October 22, 1996 by the Subcommittee 
on Immigration. During the oversight hearing on naturalization policy, several com- 
ments were made in the testimony offered by witness Georgie Anne Geyer regarding 
MALDEF, its mission and integrity. 

MALDEFs mission has been to work within the law to protect the civil rights of 
this nation's Latinos. Our efforts in ligation and legislative advocacy, community 
and parent leadership programs, focus in the areas of education, employment, immi- 
grants' and language rights, and political access. 

Despite Ms. Geyer's attempts to portray MALDEF as an organization that seeks, 
with other advocacy groups, to "destroy the value of U.S. citizenship," our history 
speaks for itself. Since its inception, MALDEF has fought vigorously and effectively 
to uphold and defend the constitutional rights extended to all members of our soci- 
ety. Issues such as access to public education, equal distribution of school resources, 
saJe workplaces and equal job opportunities, and the eradication of discriminatory 
voting practices have been the mainstay of MALDEFs litigation and advocacy ef- 
forts, and serve to protect the democratic principles upon which citizenship is held 
so valuable. Rather than "demeaning" citizenship, we have worked primarily 
through the legal system to protect the very ideals cherished by immigrants and na- 
tive bom citizens alike. 

Both in litigation and legislative advocacy, our positions over the years have been 
rooted in a profound consideration of legal, economic, social and political realities. 
But clearly, our positions have never been based upon the dilution or destruction 
of fundamental constitutional rights. Ms. Geyer alluded to the notion that groups 
such as MALDEF support such "undemocratic" ideals as extending amnesty and im- 
migration, noncitizen voting, and the threat of returning land to a mythical concep- 
tion of Aztlan. 

MALDEFs positions regarding immigration and immigrants' rights are not ex- 
pressed by the simplistic and incorrect conjecture expressed by Ms. Geyer. It is both 
deceptive and wrong to connect MALDEF to positions we have not supported, as 
well as positions that are not clearly and accurately stated. To this, while we have 
voiced our position on a number of complex issues affecting immigration and the 
rights of immigrants, we have never advocated on behalf of extending federal voting 
rights to noncitizens or even addressed the issue of reparation. 

In addition to MALDEF's litigation and legislative advocacy, we have worked 
through our community leadership programs throughout the country to educate 
Latinos about their local public and private policy-making bodies. Over 1,500 
Latinos have graduated from the program, and over half have been placed on local, 
state and national boards and commissions. Through our parent leadership pro- 
grams, we have empowered parents with the knowledge, skills and experience need- 
ed to work within the school system to address the education concerns of their chil- 
dren through increased parental involvement. Despite increasing anti-immigrant 
sentiment, and contrary to Ms. Geyer's attempted portrayal, MALDEF has worked 
consistently to unite communities and increase meaningful participation in and con- 
tributions to society. 

Finally, I object to Ms. Geyer's discussion of MALDEFs funding and support by 
the Ford Foundation. While MALDEF has, in compliance with all state and federal 
laws, received funding from both pjivate and public foundations and donations, 
MALDEF has also supported itself through attorney's fees from successful litigation. 
Contrary to Ms. Geyer's assertion in her recent book Americans No More, MALDEF 
has never received government funding. ^ MALDEF has at all times kept its records 

•Geyer, Georgie Ann, Americans No More, The Death of Citizens, Atlantic Monthly Press, 
1996, at page 214. 


open and has survived the closest scrutiny of all administrative and operational 

As you recall, I met with you at the beginning of the 104th Congress and re- 
quested that you hold hearings to seek ways to promote citizenship. It is unfortu- 
nate that MALDEF was not able to explore with you further this timely topic. How- 
ever, it is more objectionable that, without any apparent nexus, a discussion of 
MALDEFs fiinding takes place during a Senate hearing on citizenship and natu- 
ralization. More importantly, it defies credibility that such attacks are made in a 
public forum and on the record, without benefit of a response by the targeted orga- 
nization. Indeed, if there is any question of disregard of democratic principles, one 
may pose the question to Ms. Geyer's method of distortion, misrepresentation and 
innuendo, as a means of meaningful debate. 

Sadly, Ms. Geyer's characterization of such "radical" notions as equal protection 
and constitutional rights were not discussed with the clarity and thoroughness these 
ideals deserve. While MALDEF has consistently sought to protect the rights of 
Latinos in the United States, we must all agree that protecting civil and constitu- 
tional rights benefits us all. It is to the common goal of democracy that we must 
all work, rather than continue on the path of destruction that extends from misin- 
formation and divisiveness. I urge the Subcommittee in its future consideration of 
such important issues, to avoid the political sensitivities of the day in favor of a bal- 
anced, open and factual discussion of our respective positions. To this end, I respect- 
fully request that this letter be inserted in the record to provide a more balanced 
discussion regarding MALDEF. 

I wish you continued good health and best of luck in your new endeavors. I am 
sure you will provide the same dynamic leadership in private life that you have 
given us these many years in the Senate. 

Ai'jTONiA Hernandez, 
President and General Counsel. 

Mr. YZAGUIRRE. But let me refer you to an article in Hispanic 
Business Magazine, which is not always one of our greatest sup- 
porters, where they asked in an opinion poll which organization 
represented the Hispanic community the most clearly. Seventy-two 
percent of the respondents mentioned the National Council of La 
Raza as the most effective, the most representative organization in 
the Hispanic community. We serve three million people. We have 
210 affiliated organizations. 

Now, those are my credentials. You had some other people speak- 
ing before this body as mziking some assertions. I do not know that 
they can make those kinds of claims representing a group of peo- 

Let me also respond to, I think. Senator Kennedys question 
about English. We are in the business of teaching English to tens 
of thousands of people. Please understand that there is an intense 
desire on the part of new immigrants, of Hispanics to learn Eng- 
lish, that that is not even open to debate. They are willing to come 
in at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning after being out working 
all night to stay in line to learn English. There are 50,000 people 
in a waiting list in L.A. alone waiting to learn English. 

If we are truly concerned about English, Americanization, then 
we ought to be talking about Federal efforts, as Senator Kennedy 
referred to, that previously were in place to make sure that people 
who want to learn English indeed have an opportunity to do so. 

Senator Simpson. I thank you. 

Let me ask a question of all of you. The late Barbara Jordan and 
the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform which she so capably 
chaired — we miss her presence so, and would have had a different 
result in dealing with legal immigration in this last Congress had 
she lived, because she would have been a force, a very remarkable 


force — advocated the "Americanization" of new immigrants. She 
testified in June 1995 in favor of Americanization as "an essential 
part of immigration poUcy, the civic incorporation of newcomers." 
She later wrote that, "Americanization means becoming part of the 
polity, becoming one of us. Immigration imposes mutual obliga- 
tions. Those who choose to come here must embrace the common 
core of American civic culture." 

She also said in her magnificence and that voice — and I remem- 
ber it well — that she was tired of phrases Uke African American, 
Hispanic American, Irish American, Dutch American — that covers 
me. She was tired of those phrases. She said, "That is not what 
America is about." I think if anyone else had said that, there would 
have been quite a turmoil, but because of who said it and her cre- 
dentials for life in helping others and representing minorities, it 
was a very powerful statement. 

What does this term "Americanization" mean to each of you? 
Should individuals who are not Americanized be permitted to be- 
come citizens and participate in the governance of America? What 
does the term "Americanization" and "assimilation," what do those 
terms mean to each of you? If we just start right down there, 

Ms. Geyer. Just very briefly, Mr. Chsdrman. 

Senator SiMPSON. Briefly. 

Ms. Geyer. It is not a very onerous task. It means that the per- 
son accepts the general principles of American society, pledges his 
or her allegiance to that society, pledges to fight in a war, if nec- 
essary, to protect it, accepts the jury system, the various rights and 
privileges of citizenship. 

What it does not mean, as I am from the South Side of Chicago 
where every community had different churches, synagogues, dif- 
ferent ethnic celebrations, even languages at home, it does not 
mean that you do not have multiculturalism at home or in your 
community or in your church. It means you do not have 
multiculturalism in quotes, so that on the larger scale of the Na- 
tion we are divided down into group rights which will be forever 
bartering and bickering and destroying this Nation. 

Senator Simpson. Mr. Stein. 

Mr. Stein. I would like to first say that I have always been very 
grateful for Georgie Anne Greyer's willingness to take on these deli- 
cate questions of how we define race and ethnicity in America, and 
there is a lot of emotion and group poUtical interests involved and 
she has taken a lot of heat for it, but I think it has been in the 
national interest and a good part of the discussion. 

I would say that, as I reference on page three, that we need to, 
as a country — responding to Senator Kennedys point about high 
school students, I have grappled with this issue for a while. Should 
we ask more of new citizens than we can right now successfully ask 
of high school graduates native bom? I finally came to the conclu- 
sion that the answer is not only can we, but we should, and the 
reason that we should is that the naturalization process is part of 
a mirror by which we define ourselves as a people. It is our pri- 
mary mirror for introspection in deciding who we are. 

And the most important goal of Americanization, I believe, needs 
to be, as I lay out in these factors, new citizens need to understand 


the glory of the American experiment as it fits within an historical 
context. The origin of our civic bonds and obHgations to one an- 
other arise in a revolutionary sense from the idea that we are not 
ruled by a monarch or a dictator but rather that we are ruled as 
a result of mutual consent and obligations and that those obliga- 
tions imply duties. 

Successful Americanization will inculcate a fundamental under- 
standing for new citizens about why the American experiment is so 
important to the future success of the human race, and unless that 
has been inculcated — it is not benefits, it is not necessarily the 
English language, but it is a sense of what the American experi- 
ment means to the world. That is what Americanization means to 

Senator Simpson. Mr. Yzaguirre. 

Mr. Yzaguirre. Americanization to me means a fundamental be- 
lief in the principles that guide this Nation, of democracy, of plural- 
ism, of tolerance. It means that you give people the opportunity, in- 
deed, you obligate them to swear allegiance to a Constitution, a set 
of principles about how we govern ourselves, and I think that that 
has been part of our history and something I support enormously 
and profoundly. 

Senator Simpson. Senator Kennedy, do you have any further 
questions or response? 

Senator KENNEDY. No. I have no further questions. 

Senator Simpson. Obviously, a tough one. Senator Kennedy and 
I try to do it right. He has chaired this committee, subcommittee. 
I have done it. I just hope that it can always be done in a biparti- 
san way. It must be done that way and in a way which is not nativ- 
ist and not mean spirited and not racist and not bigoted, and I 
hope that we can always talk through these things. 

Did each of you get an opportunity to respond to either me or to 
Senator Kennedy in the way that you might wish in a moment or 
two that might not fire either one of us up? 

Mr. Stein. I just have one short, brief comment. I interviewed on 
a show I do Senator McCarthy the other day about the 1965 Act, 
and I think we can all agree that the 1965 Act played a very impor- 
tant role in American history, an historic role, in removing the na- 
tional origins quota system. But fundamental fairness to those of 
us who are looking at the way the system is operating today must 
suggest that the principal founders and the principal cosponsors of 
the legislation were not able to fairly predict the long-range con- 
sequences that the 1965 Act has brought, both in terms of its long- 
range impact on U.S. population growth, the chain migration phe- 
nomenon, the backlogs that have been created, and the fact that 
it, in a sense, is transforming American cities and the ethnic basis 
of society. 

The option of discussing those impacts and what it means for the 
future and whether we should change course always ought to be on 
the table, and I hope we can do it in a civil way. 

Senator SiMPSON. As I conclude my final hearing, I want to tell 
you that at the first hearing with Senator Kennedy he made a com- 
ment about the 1965 Act which was very similar to the one today. 
So remember that this man to my left, appropriately so [Laugh- 
ter.! Was the man who put that bill together, who came here with 


my father in 1962. They wonder about the relationship of the Sen- 
ator and I. My father found him to be a deHghtful companion. They 
came into the Senate together in 1962: Millard Simpson of Wyo- 
ming and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, the boy. 

So from that came my knowledge and information and education 
of the 1965 Act, and it is interesting to hear the conclusion of those 
years with the same reference. But remember, too, that this Sen- 
ator was involved in the 1980 Refugee Act and that needs oversight 
and care and attention. And those things will take place under the 
continued guidance of the Senator from Massachusetts and able 
people on my side of the aisle who will guide and nurture him 
through tragic and treacherous waters. 

Enough. That concludes the activities of the subcommittee. I 
have other questions to submit in writing. I thank my friend from 
Massachusetts. That will conclude the work of this subcommittee 
for this session of Congress. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


Additional Submissions for the Record 

OCTOBER 9, 1996 

Prepared Written Statement 
John Nelson Washburn 

Semi-retired Attorney and Counsellor at Law, and a 
former Member, American Immigration Lawyers Assdoiation, and 
Member, Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, sworn 
in, April 9j 1962, by Mr. Chief Justice Farl IVarren 

Citizenshin USA — 18^0 Style 
The Naturalization Fr:'>ud at Phil adelnhi; 

submitter for the 
nrinted recor'^ of 

U.S. Sen,-;-te Judiciary Committee 
Subcommittee on Iinri.'^r'^tion 

R e a ri n ^ 


"INS Natur-lization Pr:;ctices", held ai 

10 a.m., October 9, 1996, in 
P.P.G Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 



Citizenship USA -- 18^0 Style 
The Naturalization Fraud at Philadelphia 

In revelations contained in the voluminous material that 
Rosemary Jenks representing the Center for Immigration Studies 
has submitted for this Hearing today, both INS Commissioner 
Doris Meissner and INS Executive Associate Commissioner T. 
Alexander Aleinikoff are shovm to have been actively engaged 
during 1995-1996 in promoting naturalization initiatives of 
dubious merit under the logo of "Citizenship USA". 

V/hether huch efforts at promotion are worse than dubious 
and essentially phoney will depend UDon the degree to which 
they coincide and/or overlap vjlth campaign ploys directed by 
the White House designed to ensure reelection and a second 
term for President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, Jr. 
If V/all Street Journal staff v.rriters in their piece of Monday, 
October 2| , 1996 correctly identified DoriR Meissner' s late 
husband as the immediate U.S. Commerce Department supervisor 
of the ubiquitous and mysterious John Huang, then"Citizenshin 
USA"could well include major nolitical mischief. 

In his lead-off Statement for the r)resent Administration, 
former University of Michigan La\v Professor Aleinikoff has 
v/ith pride pointed to the INS first year accomplishment of 
processing some 1.5 million naturalization amplications and of 
■DToducing thereby 1.1 new American citizens "v.dthout compromis- 
ing the integrity of the adjudication". But in so doing he has 
given himself and his Justice De-nartment INS an esca-ne hatch, 
framed in the nhrase he used - "onnortunity for fraud". Yet, 
lest that phrase draw undue attention, he has subraergerl it in 
comments about INS monitoring measures to achieve comnliance 
v;ith certain improved standards. 


In order to cut through such cant, I hope to make sure that 
for these 1.1 million newly-minted American citizens there was 
no superficial short course provided by INS Adjudicators in test- 
ing the required knowledge applicants have of U.S. history and 
government. To enlighten all concerned, including Commissioner 
Meissner and Professor Aleinikoff, I submit for publication in 
the record sis an integral part of my prepared written statement 
four historical items, all dating back to October-November 18i»0: 
these items with source noted represent both North and South 
newspaper coverage (Philadelphia, October 2k', Savannah, October 
29; Baltimore, October 30; and Baltimore, November 11 - in that 
order) of a political scandal in 18^0 on the eve of a President- 
ial election held in the State of Pennsylvania. 

As the final item of November 11 confirms, this Philadelphia 
story had, at least for the Whig cause, a happy ending in that 
the 1836 winning Presidential candidate Martin Van Buren lost in 
18ifO in the race against his same rival but by the narrowest of 
margins, viz. 2.Gk votes, in the State of Pennsylvania. To the 16 
men comprising the Harrison and Tyler Association Executive Com- 
mittee for the City and County of Philadelphia belongs much of 
the credit for proving the truth of the saying, often cited by 
newspaperman Nathan Sargent later in the 18i|.0s as Washington 
correspondent for Philadelphia's United States Gazette: "liberty 
can only be preserved by eternal vigilance". And, added Putney, 
Vermont native Sargent in that newspaper on July 13, 18^6: 
"Corruption is the worst enemy of liberty, and this assumes as 
many shai^es as Proteus himself .... The Evil one himself never 
resorted to more adroit tricks to gain confidence ajid deceive 
than does corruption in a government." 

41-503 97-12 


AMI ll;vtl.^■ Ai)VKir)'isKii. I 

I llii.Ai);:i;i'|(L\. '. 

>a(iir.lay, Ocloli.'T ji J, Kill. ■ j 

'" "' ' ■ Pi ■ :.■ 


Tlie uiiiJcfsl|;ncJ, llic Kxi:"f!OTivKi Co» I i 
■.:.: oflhe Hafn.oii ji.J Tjlrf A%.o^i.tiit. fur I 

lid. J..iri.. t-.ll ll.l- Mr,<uM J. Il,ri0ill5>. 3 

:ili-i-n. (o'lli^'fpor bf rr..ii;d» on Ihi-lriKln of J 

kllTmiiv 111 \hf\h\r ole<!'i"iijn''l'l« »Ltdi1l" •■Hi- 
loining ,n«lM<^,3ndYn iht mSjcs ofpVcrrnlloir 
kvliirh luve brpci ami nrf nlioui lorln- i«ken 
for lliB fiilurf. I ' 

cords nf tom^ of.llin conrtf of j^tl<e tajpiil^ j 
Cilj: tnd counf J-, (« hirh tire m ^rXiillMj^ of 
ftlTirrrd Itetnn^in^ 10 the Vrh Miironip»t\y, and 
knou-n'to ba ftaitT«parU7anR.)hiirps««n Inter*' 
ipolatf d, tptinon^ declamtiont* of intention hhv« 

Iharn paiK'd in liir irroMln, and lliPhanoofiil 
lea-stonr ofthejud^fs hub^fn forj^d tonaiur* 
.alilAlion cprlifirxlri:; lliiiii pntlinj; in. circulation 
1 nnittmli'/aiion paperji a« C'""'"'*' which tiKrtf 
i no r^lidiir .» haictur, being. ciiliu uuaMliju. , 
cpiiriniw or founded on jipiirioiiR diiMarnlion.*. 
Tlic numlipt or ihoe npnitoiK pV^r *<^ f" > 
'^boft time b« prnci.tely niirfrt^inrdj I 

Aclivr mcxiirfn hav» bo»n '»kj^n by tS» 
piopcr aiillioniiea tor tbe dcteclioD of ibbiln 
whn biivx bnrn inilrumrnial in thIlKf fahrira-. 
iiniia, anil will be fiiihfiiliy prraevered in until 
tbe [;itiliy abatl be legally avcertainicd, end tbe 
laws and jualicn of the ronntry jYfnjed-'-by 

*l'iiK Kiirrtrrivf CoM^iiTrrK announra tn 
ibrir fellon- citir.enii Ihatthey havniaken mea- 
iurex toproTenl a repetition of aocbenorreitiea 
at the Hretiidenlial eleriionl .\ccurate.tiala of 
allllie natur:ilizi^lion papfrn recently (rraatcd 
hwthe eoortR of ibisriiy antl county are prepar- 
in£. an,': will be f.irn.cbed lo.lJiui Inijwclorn 
■of ibi' and other coiiniiei, 5o (h«t|;any on/i of-. 
ferinjy to Tot* on papers irre^'ularh' or fraudu* 
lently issued or nbtnine^ will bnat once de- 
lected. )i 

Kvr»ry one who lias recently obtaineii .bis 
certifieaie of naliirali'iation ran easily awer-. 
tain if it be genuine. A little reflpctioo upon 
the dan^'er, ifyiot certainly, of detection .wbieh 
lho«e will incur wbo.ittrnipl m vdin on p:iperB 
Irai.dulenlly obtained, « ill con.inca tbem of 
tlie pniHence of tins precaution, and deter 
them from otrerinr; their (mlTraJe nnlil they 
have clesrly ascertained that ibey posacss the 
rijhi. 1 , , 

Wo bate reason to beliere illat the num- 

fjclrired in my uiiliin lbs la.l', few 
H.eke I. T.ry iiuniero,,.. ami lljil Uiey base 
hern nrrulaled not only in tliej neighborinff, 

"countiei;. hut in those more distant, especiallyi 
aloncr the line oflhe .Stale iimprQ,vomenta. j 
In order to aid in tbe deleciioil of the oriji- 
naion of these ftaudit. a« well La those who 
are willinj to alail ilieraaelres of lb em to ob- 
tain tbe nririlfje of ivotinj. we "partiCTlWly 
request all who have an interest io prene.rTine 
lb. (Mirilv of ibe halli.r boi, in the , dilTerenl 
eleciion ilistricui in the Slat... lo take tbe n 

f every one whojpreaenta htm- 


1 papers puipomo^ 

tobive hern issued by any of ... 

I'liiladrlpliia w Itbin the last tliijie monlha. the 
daleof the pHper. llieicourt front which it ia- 
sued, the name of the clerk brother officer 
whose ai^nalure shalh appear u[>on it, and lo 
fora-ard a memorandum ofalla^ch partiou^ara 
to US immediately after ;lie closino' of .lh« 
election. , ■ . ^ . '...-. 

■ Ijpon the rrceipt of thia informatiorx it will 
he easy fur ua to asceruin and;, bring to corv 
di"n pMnb-hment, ai Urell thos* whey havB ia- 
sued the fraudulent papers, aa tboae who harir 
used tbem in defiance of the lalra. . 

Philatlelphla, OcIoIiit '.'4, \BiO. '. - 

Jo^iih Randall. I NalbanLvaerent ' '> ' 

John l'.,\Vetherlll, I Aleiandi-r Kerpison. ■ 
Joseph R. Chandler. John Si' Riddje, 
Wm. B. Reed. Joj, O. ClarWs^ 

Dels Oadcer, I \V,n. Dl Whitecar, ■ 

•J^mupl W. Weer, I ■ RobertiJIo.ell, ■• - 

Chas. A. Repplier.i— Henry'McIleaine, ! ' 
Jimes Gregory, j ,Wm. V. Blight. ' 


SM/ANNAH DAILY REPUBLICAN Thursday, Oc tober P.9,lP>kO 
t '^u i » — 

^ Tit I^bmUiia lion fraud at PkUajdeijukk, — 
Tte'itt^la^^irib^ rra»<l,which> now Icnown 
tnd ^AsAl^ to h;^e txen accomplished^ at the 
re<7Dt efi^ctien in PbilajdelpH» city mod coonur, 
it reaQy cakuJalcd to excite a«tODi«famcnt. Tne 
PhtUdd|iia Gazette of. Wedncaday, coDtiams a 
bcga lowr of namea, >vbich are uodentood to 
hare beetj fraud nlently interpolated in the Decord^ 
of xho ^a)urt, ai of penooj who had 'filed 
their docf ratioa ofiateotbD to become c\tJ7^m 
two jfom fgo-^to u iff confer on them tbepriv- 
3e|;ecrT0tiiir. And itisstaled in tb<! Philadel- 
phia ScfftineT, that dq lew than thirfy Ituztz, 
eouiatoii^ pretended declarationa ofalienf, and 
p rimed Jil.csact. imitation ol tbc^enuine. h^v*? 
been 'wl^polatedio'tlw Book of Declaratinnf 
ortbeCoDrtor^liSB.rterSeaaion« ofthat county. 
Thft 4hig^^4eay ea | i{ rf|f p&ge»r^we--pre«o«i«->ol^ 
COQOteri«U. Deciaraijonf all bear. date sf)1838, 
wo 9m\o ipa3ce themMwo yeara pripr tattx elec- 
tJocw of t^ present year. 6uehah)oti4f*aa8ror- 
gcryT-«Jch a wboleaale fraud-opon the n'f hu of 
tbelepl f Qter,ia enofighlOsmake^ne.ahaader<^' 
eapeaaiSji whea H la known that after the forge- 
ry to t*y«Y^*K^ if f "^ff •fiiliy yfft>nni;^^ «^p 
xrioM ofiienberat^ l>fsjaiT mutt be yet acSded, to 
nsake fiisbf fork ery available for tJje x)biect in- 

^'^]^fiky|n^^ Tote'nndfsj these 

^p^M^'W^tt^^M^ m aUty pa^e» of the 
recor^ ||ifi«makf bath that he>»i ''decUued hu 

l^^'?*teSji*?<'>?^ of the 

^^iixKfji^Mi^ taiiaf be wpyorted by tbeatlea- 
tx^n prt^IifiedTOter,*afo^:nhdef o«U}, that 

-f@<^-^^%i^il*'? .tnd perjpiy/.Witba 
Tw^39i58l»liWbaj)ot box; and tdcsany>n 




ir jTiiE Philadelphia NatubJlization Fraods. 
By the Philadelphia North American of Thuj^s- 
Jay, we learn that'inthc Cou t of Quarter Ses- 
sions on the (lay before, it was decided by Judges 
King, lUndall aiid Jones, that the "declarations 
o( intentions,", the legality of which had beien 
called in questi«n,|had been traudulently int^r 
polatcd, and that the name of the recording 
clerk, iu every instance in v hich it appeanid, 
had been forged. I The decl trations so int;r- 
p«i)lated, were by order of the court, vacated. 

I In the report of the Court ol'Geheral Sessio is, 
we find the following procee* ing of the Grand 
,j|>ry. . , I 

|l( appeared that the nati ralizalion paptrs 
M'crc before the grand jury, iVho were sent (;>r. 
Tlioy came in with two bills, three preseit- 
mcnts, and a "Ueitort" in rcgj rd to the naturj li- 
zition frauds. After penjsin(; the latter. Judge 
Barton inquired i%hat the ^rand jury desired 
should be done with it. They answered that 
tbc-y wished it reid in open court; and Thonas 
Biddle, Esq., one <if their number, proceeded ac- 
cordingly to read jit. It wa^ in substance 
follows. • I I 

I Tliat the grandijury had lajboriously invciti- 
L'atcd the subject of the alleged frauds, laid }e- 
fore them by his honor Judge IBarton, and sub- 

mitted several matters for the consideration of 
the court. Tliey had found ^reat disorders, 
tliey tkought, to lexist in the practices of he 
clerks (A the Court of General anil Quarter Ses 
sjon'!, that no index of the names of those re- 
cently naturalized had b*cn made out in cither; 
that wh^n certificates of naturalization w;rc 
granted,' no memorandum \^as made upon be 
petition,' oi'_e_lsewhere, to shiw that tlicy had 
b^cn^o granted;that the clerks lad kept no kc- 
cbunt ot the fees I'eceived by them In naturaliza- 
tion CAses; that miany of the pclilions filed wbre 
without the signatures of the aliens naturalised, 
, Ijiougli certijic* tci had been (;rantcd on suchpe- 
lUloii^, ind manyl of them vrithout what most 
hlore, thi initials Af the respective judges allow- 
ilig them. They also found i hat in the General 
Sessions, under ttie diiictioii or permissioc of 
Judge Doran, thej oaths to hi: adninistered, ac- 
cording (to the Act of Congress, in open Co art, 
1 ad beeh during at the last throe days, shortly 
lefore the late eUcllon, on which days a very 
large member had been naturalized, adrainistcred 
Ify the clerk, or his deputy, outaide of the Court 
Koom, in the vestibule, or hall, or in tome of 
ijhe adjbiniBg robms. These difTerent matters 
Uiey laid before the Court, that such action as 
seemed iproper might t>e had jin regard to them. 



TtsiiSYLVANtA.-^ Official Rtturru.—Tbt I 
lowini ire the officUl rct u ms 'of (j^g^^y yitel 

UU4 by-p«p«r» '^f j»&»jpi]ti[e8^fe,Hl 
dfeotonl -tieJr«Jl 

The, iolifi'^yfijruon 

«oUs, bu bcen,cl)0(e]>, .,'~ 
' 2453 

Addtnij ... 
AllegTeiiy, ,..*.... 7G20 

AroMl uDg, 1 260 

R«cve , 3143 

Bedfoid, ...;..... 2910 

B«rV» .....^ 3582 

Bucks; 4705- 

Bradfdrd^ 2631 

BuUei, 2100 

Crtword, ..2409 

Chest T, .'.5643 

Colunbii, ..1325 

CumbsrUnd, ...J. 2790 
COiib i«,.......J. 811 

Centri, .l J. 1447 

Clinttn, [ J. 637 

CIe»rileld, J. 499 

CUri<n,'. J. 648 


neluvarii, :.203l 

Krie,. \, ,'; J . 3G3C 

Kajtle, :.2765 

Franklin 3586, 

Greene,. 1.1350 


(iidiaiia, 1.1953 

Jcirer:on, 47C 

Juniaia, 1 . 906 

LuzcJnc, i.277'J 

I.ancisler, ..9G73 

Lebaton, 1.2369 

Lehigfc^. ;.2405 

Lycoi ling, .....1.1 504 

!Mon^;omery, 40C8 

iMerc<r,.i.i 1.3249 

Monroe,! 1. 345 

iMimi), .! 1.1226 

NortL amnion, 284G 

I Norti uraberlaod,'. .1351 
Philalelphia CO., L 10189 

Perry i..l072 

Philalelphia cily;..7C55 

Pike, 135 

PottekJ Mckean,. 180 

Some set ..2501 

Schujlkill, 1881 

Susqi channa,.. .'. .1500 

Tlogi ,.;..' |.. 895 

Union, ..2423 

Venxigo, 855 

Waslington, ..J. .4147 

Way ie, I.. 675 

Wanfcn, j. . 827 

West norcland,... 2778 
York ...3792 


V.1B, ; V.Bi;. 

;^28 ;: 1186 

41573 1 3074 

1744 : 
1710 : 
2446 : 
2844 • 
2908 ■ 

,4882 ' 




, 2242 
649 . 
812 ' 
2892 ■ 
2010 , 
22GC I 
1043 ' 
5472 : 
2330 , 

524 ; 

■ 455 
1721 , 




; 450 


(new couqty) 



(new coutjtv) 

























































■ 1027 

















OCTOBER 22, 1996 

National Council of La Raza (NCLR), 

Washington, DC, September 19, 1996. 
Editorial Department, 
The National Review, 
New York, NY. 

Dear Editors: I read with exasperation the excerpt from Georgie Ann Geyer's 
forthcoming book in your September 16th issue. It is an account of an interview she 
had with me and an associate more than a decade ago. While I strongly disagree 
with much of the article, I do not challenge her right to express her opinions or 
yours to print them. I do challenge, however, the accuracy of the "facts" she cites, 
which cast serious doubt on her credibility as a "journalist." Her account, in which 
she asserts that another NCLR staff member and I indicated that "we don't have 
members," and that our financial support came from "The Ford Foundation" is both 
misleading and inaccurate, on several levels. 

First, she omits entirely the context of the conversation, which took place after 
NCLR had written the producer of Washington Week in Review to complain about 
her inaccurate statements on that program. She should recall that we specifically 
challenged her statements regarding the "tens of millions" of undocvimented aliens 
she then alleged were in the U.S. who would be legalized as a result of the pending 
Simpson-Mazzoli legislation. As Census Bureau and Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion Service estimates demonstrated at the time, the actual number of such persons 
in the U.S. was less than 5 million. Indeed, actual experience with the legalization 
program resulted in fewer than 3 million persons legalized. I'm sorry to say that 
Ms. Geyer's reporting is no more accurate today than it was at that time. 

Second, whether by accident or design, Geyer's article transposed two entirely dif- 
ferent parts of the conversation. Indeed I indicated that we do not have individual 
members, which we do not. She ignores entirely my subsequent explanation regard- 
ing our community-based organization membership — which consists of over 200 
groups that serve over 2.5 million people per year — to whom we are fiilly account- 
able. Irrespective of what her memory may indicate — and I can appreciate how, with 
the passage of time she might have become confused — I do not imderstand how she 
could ignore the written descriptions of the organization which we provided to her 
at the time and have been and are available upon request since that time. These 
written materials clearly and unequivocally describe the organization's structure, 
and should have been reviewed prior to completion of the article. 

Third, Geyer's description of our conversation regarding the Ford Foundation 
omits entirely the context of the discussion, which had to do with the founding of 
the organization in the late 1960s. Indeed, NCLR's predecessor organization, the 
Southwest Council of La Raza, was founded in part because of the absence of medi- 
ating community-based organizations serving Latinos. She has chosen to ignore the 
simple factual explanation that U.S. Hispanics, unlike many other ethnic groups, 
lacked their own institutions — churches, schools and colleges, professional societies, 
and civic groups. The absence of such institutions was particularly significant at the 
time, since many of the programs and services supported by the War on Poverty 
and the civil rights laws pre-supposed their existence. It is, after all, tough to run 
a Head Start program, or to build low-income housing, without a non-profit sponsor. 
In this context, supporting the development of regional organizations like the South- 
west Council or national organizations like NCLR to establish and develop such me- 
diating institutions made sense then and makes sense now. 

Fourth, Geyer's allegation that NCLR is not accountable "to disparate sources of 
funding" but only to the Ford Foundation is itself contradicted by the data she her- 
self cites. For 1989, for example, Ford Foundation funding ($590,000) amounted to 
only about 16% of NCLR's revenues ($3.55 million), according to her own figures. 
Notable by their omission are some of our other funding sources at that time, in- 
cluding the Coors Brewing Company, AT&T, Coca Cola, and other mainstream com- 
panies that support our mission and continue to do today. She notes subsequently 
that Ford Foundation support to NCLR increased to a "whopping" $1.25 million in 
1991, but omits the fact that much of that support was for multi-year projects, and 
the fact that the organization's total budget that fiscal year had grown to over $6 
million. I note parenthetically that Ford and other foundation support for NCLR 
and other Latino organizations was then and is now far smaller than support to 
comparable organizations serving African Americans, women, persons with disabil- 
ities, and so on, in both absolute and relative terms. 

Finally, the article recalls in great detail and places a great deal of importance 
on the "facial expressions, statements, and motivations" on Geyer's meeting with 
"two young men" from NCLR. Yet I was accompanied in that interview by a female 


staff member, Marta M. Escutia, then NCLR's Legislative Director. Ms. Escutia, 
now a highly-respected Assemblywoman for the State of California, confirms my 
recollection of this meeting. 

There are some Americans who do not believe our society needs either civil rights 
laws or civil rights organizations. We do not expect their support. An overwhelming 
majority of the Hispanic community, the general pubUc, and even corporate America 
believes otherwise. 

Given a few careful commissions and storybook flourishes, with a couple of down- 
right inaccuracies thrown in, I suppose that it is entirely possible to paint a persua- 
sive picture of a massive and complex "conspiracy." Once all of the facts are known, 
it is far simpler and more persuasive to believe that the Ford Foundation and other 
flinders of NCLR — including the 200 affiliates who pay membership dues — support 
the organization because they believe in its stated mission of reducing poverty and 
discrimination in the Hispanic community. 

It is an axiom of science that the simplest explanations for unknown phenomena, 
provided they are based on all of the facts, are invariably the most accurate. Such 
is the case here. Those who believe that the Trilateral Commission runs America, 
or that the Holocaust never happened, or that the Apollo moon landing was an 
elaborate hoax, will surely find much comfort in Geyer's article, as is their right in 
a free society. Fortunately, the rest of us are also free to dismiss her article for the 
nonsense it is. 


Charles Kamasaki, 
Senior Vice President. 

Prepared Statement of Harry P. Pachon, Ph.D., Kenan Professor of Politi- 
cal Studies, Pitzer College/Claremont Graduate School, and President, 
ToMAS Rivera Policy Institute 

As the U.S. bom son of Columbian immigrants, whose father became an American 
citizen, and whose mother always regretted not being able to pass the naturalization 
examination, I feel it is a privilege to have the opportunity to submit this testimony 
on a process that is so key to American democracy and which is so salient to the 
immigrant community. As members of the Subcommittee know, naturalization is 
one of the few politicad processes mentioned both in the Declaration of Independence 
and the Constitution of the United States. For over 200 years, the requirements for 
naturalization have remained remarkably steadfast — five years of legal residency, 
"good" moral character, and knowledge of English/Civics (there are exceptions to the 
above but the majority of immigrants have to fulfill these requirements before be- 
coming Americans by choice). 

There is now much talk among certain segments of the political spectrum that 
U.S. citizenship has become a devalued commodity, and that the process is so simple 
that one author has even likened it to joining a health club! 

As a social scientist who has spent the better part of the last decade studying the 
naturalization process I cannot think of anything further from the truth. Before I 
go on, let me state my qualifications for addressing this issue. I first began studying 
U.S. citizenship and its relationship to the Hispanic community back in the 1970's. 
During the 1980's, I convened the first national conference on U.S. citizenship and 
the Hispanic community in my capacity as Executive Director of the National Asso- 
ciation of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO). This conference was 
held in Washington, DC, in 1984. Only fifty individuals attended the event. (Con- 
ference proceedings are available through the Library of Congress.) At that time I 
realized that naturalization was a process that was largely a mystery to the immi- 
grant community. While the requirements for naturalization (residency, knowledge 
of English and civics) were apparently straightforward, the actual process was the 
subject of anecdote and impressionistic evidence (which to some degree is still true 

Let me cite some examples. What knowledge was required to pass the civics 
exam? Was it true that some Immigration and Naturalization examiners would ask 
such questions as "How many Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock?" or "Name the 
order that the colonies entered the union?" Why was there a perception in the immi- 
grant community that the naturalization process was fraught with difficulty while 
the INS claimed that only 1% of the applicants ever failed the process? Why were 
the forms so complex? 

These and other questions occupied an applied action research project that was 
funded by major foundations for over two million doUars and which I conducted for 
over six years to ascertedn the answers. My efforts during this time period included: 


commissioning an administrative study of the natiiralization process (The Long 
Grey Welcome by David North, NALEO Education Fund, 1988); commissioning an 
ethnographic study of fifty case histories of immigrants who are citizens (see Inter- 
national Mitigation Review, 1986); and conducting the first national survey of 
Latino immigrant attitudes towards U.S. citizenship (see New Americans by Choice 
by Harry Pachon and Louis Desipio, Westview Press, 1994). I also engaged in direct 
field work with the immigrant community including directing the NALEO Edu- 
cational Fimd to estabUsh the first national U.S. citizenship hotline which in the 
first years of operation received several hundred thousand calls, and directing 
NALEO EducationaJ Fund staff to experiment and finally implement U.S. citizen- 
ship workshops. 

From each of these projects I developed the following insights into the naturaliza- 
tion process. 

• Administrative analysis revealed that INS official definition of failure did not 
include applications filled out incorrectly; nor did it include applicants who "with- 
drew" their applications after having failed the civics or English component of the 
exam. If these two factors are taken into consideration between twenty to thirty per- 
cent of all naturalization apphcants fail the first time they apply. 

• The ethnographic study of 50 case histories of Latino immigrants revealed that 
the decision to become an American citizen was based on the same factors that have 
made millions of Europeans new Americans — attachment and loyalty to this country 
and a desire to participate in the democratic process. 

• The hotline we established showed that there was a yearning in the immigrant 
community for information on naturalization. The first day after we opened the hot- 
line over 8,000 immigrants called and flooded the operators with information re- 
quests. Note that this was in 1986 not 1996. 

• The citizenship workshops demonstrated that there are efficient and low cost 
ways for immigrants to surmount the paper frontier that exists. High school and 
college student volunteers can provide invaluable assistance to immigrants in filling 
out the naturalization forms. 

• The first national survey revealed that two out of three Latino immigrants 
wanted to become American citizens but only 1 out of 4 succeeded in doing so. 

These insights were developed as a result of this project and I take pride in not 
having received any funding from Federal, State, or local public funds to carry out 
this research. 

It is in this context that we now have to examine the current naturalization proc- 
ess in the 1990's. Forms have been simplified, but are still difficult for an immigrant 
to complete. The exam questions have now been standardized and several private 
companies now offer exams that are based on standardized questions. In my opin- 
ion, the naturalization pamphlets that INS produces are a vast improvement over 
what they had in the past but could still be improved. The one area where the po- 
tential for administrative discretion abuse exists on the part of the INS examiner 
is the English fluency test. Too many disturbing reports on complex English being 
used to ascertain English fluency still episodically appear. 

Yet overall the process has been improved and this explains to some degree why 
so many immigrants have been successful in negotiating the INS bureaucracy. How- 
ever, INS administrative improvements or Citizenship USA is not the reason why 
so many immigrants are becoming citizens. The causes of this wave of new Ameri- 
cans are many. 

One of the most important reasons is that of the 3 million imdocumented immi- 
grants who became legal permanent residents in the 1980's under the Immigration 
Reform and Control Act, a vast majority became eligible for U.S. citizenship these 
past two years. A large number of these immigrants have been living in the United 
States since before 1982. That makes 14 years of residency in this country. It takes 
13-15 years for a typical Latino immigrant to seek naturalization. INS has known 
about the potential wave of new applicants for the past six years. Unfortunately, 
neither Congress nor the administration adequately planned to meet it. 

Another reason is the current INS policy of having legal permanent residents 
renew their green cards. Since it costs approximately the same to renew a green 
card as it does to apply for citizenship, many immigrants are considering whether 
they should remain legal permanent residents or seek citizenship. 

To many immigrants, legal permanent residency in the 90's doesn't seem to offer 
the legal protections U.S. citizenship is thought to provide. A 1994 California state- 
wide poll of Latinos revealed for example, that 25 percent personally feared dis- 
crimination or violence. U.S. citizenship and an American passport are seen as secu- 
rity blankets against emti-immigrant bashing. 


All of these reasons, together with this Congress's decision to restrict welfare ben- 
efits to legal permanent residents have come together to increase the wave of natu- 
ralizations that this coimtry is experiencing. 

Does this mean that the naturaUzation process has been cheapened or that immi- 
grants are becoming American citizens for different reasons than yesteryear? 1 
would argue strongly against this position. Let us remember that in the 19th and 
early 20th century naturalization was carried out by East Coast political machines 
that were naturalizing immigrants literally "fresh off the boat." Tammany Hall, ac- 
cording to political scientist Steve Erie, naturalized 70,000 Irish immigrants in two 
years in the late 1860's. I guarantee that these immigrants did not fill out the com- 
plex forms of today, or had their fingerprints checked or passed a citizenship exam. 
More recently, in the 1920's and 1930's political commentators were concerned about 
Eastern European and Mediterranean immigrants becoming U.S. citizens. After all, 
the critics argued, these were the same immigrants that came from authoritarian 
or peasant backgrounds. The opponents of naturalization in the 1920's and 1930's 
sound remarkably like the opponents of naturalization today. 

I would argue that the concerns being articiilated today about our newest Ameri- 
cans by elements of the conservative right are not based on any hard evidence. Let 
me go over some of the assertions that are currently being circiilated about the His- 
panic community (the group that comprises one of the largest segments of the newly 
naturjdized Americans) and contrast them with the facts. 

Assertion #i; Latino immigrants retain their native language much longer than 
European immigrants did at the turn of the century. 

Facts: Since Latino communities are composed of both native bom and recently 
arrived immigrants outside observers tend to confuse the two. Specifically, outside 
observers who look at a barrio in east Los Aii^eles or Spanish Harlem see a profu- 
sion of both written and spoken Spanish. The conclusion from the observation? 
Latinos don't want to learn English and are somehow separatists from the rest of 
American society. I submit to you that if you were to take a time machine and go 
back to the turn of the century in the immigrant ghettos of New York, Baltimore, 
or Chicago, you would have seen the same foreign language signs. Yet instead of 
Spanish these signs would have been in Italian, Russian and German. The facts 
show a different picture. English language acquisition among Hispanic immigrants 
is roughly the same as those of our other immigrant groups. Let me give you some 
specifics on this issue. Among Mexican Americans bom in this country 94% are 
EngUsh proficient; among the foreign bom only 51% are English proficient. Even 
among the immigrants the facts paint a different picture. One out of every three 
Latino immigrants — mind you, these are immigrants, not native bom — are 
monolingual in EngUsh! How can this be? We forget that many of our legal immi- 
grants come over as children and although they speak Spanish in the home they 
speak English in school and at work. As time goes on they gradually lose their pro- 
ficiency in their "native" language and come to rely on their acquired language. The 
other two thirds of the immigrants surveyed listed their language proficiencies in 
the following ways: 1/3 were monolingual in Spanish and 21/3 were bilingual. 

Assertion #2; New Latino citizens have dual allegiances to this nation and to their 
home country. 

Facts: On this point. Latino allegiance to this country has been proven over and 
over again by their all paying the steepest price any community can pay — in blood. 
From the New Mexican national guard defenders at Corregidor in World War II — 
to the 1:12 Marines in the Persian Gulf, you will find that Latinos have been an 
integral part of our armed forces for the better part of this centiuy. If one visits 
the Pentagon and stops by the HaU of Heros, there is a painting that commemorates 
the 38 Medal of Honor winners of Hispanic origin — more Medal of Honor winners 
than £iny ethnic group in America today. Or when one visits the Vietnam memorial 
one can't help but notice the numbers of Perezes, Garcias, Guerras and Martinez's 
that are Usted on the wall. Thus the assertions that Latino new citizens are some- 
what suspect as compared to previous immigrant groups are refuted by the facts. 
Moreover the criticisms of Latino immigrants today are eerily similar to the same 
criticisms that Southern and European immigrants received at the turn of the cen- 

If Latino and other immigrants are becoming the latest chapter in our history of 
incorporating immigrants into new Americans, what recommendations would I 
make for the naturalization process? 

• Recommendation #i; Instead of exclusively focusing on cognitive knowledge of 
American history and civics, e.g., "Who was the first President of the United 
States?" or "How many branches of government are there?", the exam should also 
include questions on the importance of democratic participation. For example, "Why 
should you vote in elections?" It would be critical, however, to include these topics 


in the preparatory material for the exam and that these questions be standardized 
and not be subject to administrative discretion abuse on the part of INS examiners. 

• Recommendation #2; Natviralization material and information should be in- 
cluded as part of the package visa applicants receive when acquiring their legal per- 
manent resident status. 

• Recommendation #3: The INS should report annually to Congress the numbers 
and percentage of immigrants who are turned away by not filling out the form cor- 
rectly or not passing the Civics/English exam. Beginning in the second year of this 
annual reporting INS should report what percentage and numbers of individuals in 
this category have reapplied or have become "discouraged Americans." 

• Recommendation M: Congress should reinstate the pre- 1980 procedure of hav- 
ing members of Congress send letters of congratulations to new Americans. This 
process was eliminated in the early 1980s and should be again in place. 

• Recommendation #5; The English language component of the INS exam should 
be standardized and normed at an appropriate level for the immigrant community. 
Clear standards should be set for INS officials who administer this examination. 

• Recommendation #6; Since legal permanent residents now constitute a popu- 
lation of over ten million in the nation, (if gathered together they would constitute 
the 14th largest state) the nation should recommit itself to the process of celebrating 
the naturalization process through a series of public recognitions of what natural- 
ized Americans have contributed to this nation. From Albert Einstein to Arnold 
Schwarzenegger the impact of naturalized Americans has been great. The post of- 
fice, for example, should run a commemorative stamp series on Americans by choice; 
and national citizenship day (September 14th) should be highlighted. 

• Recommendaton #7; A bipartisan commission, composed of an equal number of 
members chosen by the executive committee and Congress, should be established to 
examine the naturalization policies of other nations and how the U.S. could improve 
its own naturalization program. This commission could report its finding in the Year 
2000 and establish and groundwork for naturalization in the 21st century. 

Members of the Committee, I began this testimony by stating what a privilege I 
consider this opportunity. I stand ready to provide any further information the Com- 
mittee may desire. Thank you. 

Harry P. Pachon, President, The Tomas Rivera Policy Institute 

Harry P. Pachon brings to the Tomas Rivera PoUcy Institute (TRPI) a unique 
combination of scholarly, public policy, and nonprofit leadership experience. As 
president of the TRPI since 1993, Dr. Pachon guides the policy research agenda to 
assure that the Institute's work has direct impact on policies affecting the Latino 
community. Under Dr. Pachon's leadership, the TRPI has received national recogni- 
tion for its work in the fields of immigration policy, information technology, civic 
and social research on the Hispanic community and the role that Latinos are play- 
ing in the area of Western Hemispheric integration. Previous to his position with 
TRPI, Dr. Pachon was one of the founding board members of the National Associa- 
tion of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund. He 
served as the Fund's Executive director for ten years where he initiated a nationally 
acclaimed U.S. citizenship project that is now repUcated on a multi-ethnic basis 
across several major U.S. cities. 

Dr. Pachon received his undergraduate and Master's degree from California State 
University at Los Angeles. He received his doctorate from the Claremont Graduate 
School. Dr. Pachon has been awarded postdoctoral grants from the National Associa- 
tion of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration and the National Endowment 
for the Humanities. 

Dr. Pachon combines extensive experience in governmental work. He served as a 
Policy Analyst for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and as 
an Associate Staff member of the Appropriations Committee of the U.S. House of 
Representatives. He has served as an Expert Consultant to the U.S. Agency for 
International Development and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Serv- 

Academic positions that Dr. Pachon has held include positions at Michigan State 
University and City University of New York (tenured). He is currently Kenan Pro- 
fessor of Political Studies at Pitzer College and The Claremont Graduate School. He 
has numerous pubUcations in professional journals, and has co-authored the books 
"Mexican Americans," "Hispanics in the United States," and "New Americans By 
Choice." He has been the recipient of Ford, Carnegie, Mellon, and Rockefeller Foun- 
dation research grants, as well as a research award from the prestigious Social 
Science Research Council. 


Dr. Pachon serves as a board member of Rebuild L.A. and as a member of the 
Council on Foreign Relations. He is cvirrently Chairman of the Board of the NAXiEO 
Educational Fund. 


October 1996 


OCTOBER 22, 1996 


Citizenship for Granted 

How the INS Devalues Naturalization Testing 

by John J. Miller and William James Muldoon 

Executive Summary 



Immigrants must meet a variety of requirements before they can 
become American citizens. One of the most important is a test on U.S. 
history and government. All citizenship applicants must pass this test in order 
to naturalize. The exams are not meant to be difficult. But neither are they 
meant to be haphazard or meaningless. Unfortunately, the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service currently threatens to make them both. 

Because record numbers of immigrants are applying for citizenship, the 
INS is under mounting pressure to process the applications of more people. 
As a result, the agency has unwisely begun to consider time-saving reforms 
that would effectively dumb-down naturalization testing. 

To make matters worse, testing procedures vary widely from district to 
district. It is possible for the same immigrant to pass a test in one district but 
fail it in another. This is the direct result of the INS's practice of letting each 
district create its own testing rules and failing to make even a minimal effort 
to oversee the administration of these exams. INS headquarters in 
Washington is willfully ignorant as to how its 33 district offices handle 

The Center for Equal Opportunity surveyed each of the INS's districts 
to learn about how they test citizenship applicants. This Policy Brief reports 
the findings of the survey and highlights the sometimes dramatic differences 
in district testing procedures as well as the appalling lack of oversight from 
Washington, D.C. Only a set of national standards will inoculate the 
naturalization process against diminished requirements and make the actual 
administration of citizenship tests more uniform across the country. 



PHONE 202 639-0803 FAX 202 639-0827 

hitp: //w^ww.ceousa .org 



The Immigration and Naturalization Service recently has come under 
intense scrutiny for its practice of allowing private contractors to conduct the 
US. history and government exams that naturalization applicants must pass 
in order to gain citizenship. During Congressional hearings on this issue, 
Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.) said that lax INS oversight has led to 
"serious instances of testing fraud in the citizenship process."' 

These tests on U.S. history and government are a cornerstone of the 
naturalization process. Any corruption in their administration must be rooted 
out. In focusing its attention on private contractors, however. Congress only 
touches a minority of naturalization test-takers. There are, in fact, many 
problems with the tests given in INS offices themselves. 

Why Is Naturalization 

As a nation of immigrants, the United States confronts a unique 
dilemma surrounding national unity.^ Perhaps Alexis de Tocqueville put the 
problem best in his book Democracy in America. "How does it happen that in 
the United States, where the inhabitants have only recently immigrated to the 
land which they now occupy ... where, in short, the instinctive love of 
country can scarcely exist; how does it happen that everyone takes as zealous 
an interest in the affairs of his township, his country, and the whole slate as if 
they were his own?" asked Tocqueville. His answer: The United States 
"make[s] them partakers in the government" by allowing them to assume a 
set of political rights.' 

In other words, the United States gradually draws immigrants into civil 
society. When they are ready, they can gain the citizenship that makes them 
full and equal members of the American community. They do this through 
the naturalization process. 

But how to know when they are ready? The founders were deeply 
concerned about the possibility of accepting immigrants who would not 
assume the mantle of self-government. "Among other instances, it is known 
that hardly anything contributed more to the downfall of Rome than her 
precipitate communication of the privileges of citizenship to the inhabitants 
of Italy at large," wrote Alexander Hamilton in 1 802. "And how terribly was 
Syracuse scourged by perpetual seditions, when, after the overthrow of the 
tyrants, a great number of foreigners were suddenly admitted to the rights of 

In order to avoid these problems — and make sure immigrants are 
prepared for citizenship — the United States has constructed a battery of 
requirements that all naturalization applicants must meet. 

I Five years of residency: Applicants must have lived legally in or 
under the jurisdiction of the United States for a minimum of five 
years to apply for naturalization. 

2 I CEO Policy Brief 


I Criminal background check: Applicants for naturalization must 
have "good moral character." For practical purposes, this means 
they cannot have been convicted of committing a major crime. The 
FBI conducts a background check of all naturalization applicants. A 
felony conviction while residing in the United States almost always 
leads to the immediate loss of citizenship eligibility. 

I English ability: Applicants must be able to speak, read, and write 
"simple English," which is typically interpreted to require third- 
grade abilities. Persons who are at least 50 years old and have been 
living in the United States for at least 20 years are exempted from 
this requirement in what is popularly known as the "50/20" rule. 
There also is a "55/15" age/residency rule. These exempted 
applicants are allowed to take their U.S. history and government 
exam in their native tongue. 

I U.S. history and government exam: This examination is meant to 
ensure that all applicants for citizenship have a basic understanding 
of American history and the principles that are at the root of our 

There are a handful of other requirements, but these four are the most 
significant. And they lead to a fifth crucial requirement immigr<mts must 
meet as they pass through the threshold from resident alien to American 
citizen: the Oath of Allegiance, in which they forsake foreign allegiances and 
swear devotion to the U.S. Constitution in a formal ceremony.' 

The Rush to Citizenship if naturalization has been important to assimilation throughout 

American history, it is especially important today. More than 20 million 
foreign-bom people currently live in the United States. They accounted for 
8.4 percent of the total population in 1994, according to the Census Bureau.' 
As more immigrants arrive on American shores, the foreign-bom share of the 
population is bound to increase. Naturalization is one of the keys to keeping 
the United States dedicated to the maxim of E pluribus unum. 

During the 1990s, the number of immigrants applying for citizenship 
skyrocketed. In 1996, an estimated 1 .2 million immigrants will seek to 
become citizens, up from an annual average of just 230,000 during the 
1980s.' (See Figure I.) There are several ways to explain this sudden 
increase, such as legislative efforts to deny public assistance to non-citizens, 
changes in Mexican property rights laws, and an expanding pool of people 
eligible for naturalization.' 

Whatever the reason, this msh to citizenship has created a huge backlog 
of applicants. In some INS distncts, immigrants can wait for more than a yeju- 
between the time they file their citizenship applications and the moment they 

3 I Citizenship for Granted 


Figure 1: Naturalization 

Requests, Citizenship 

Granted, 1980-today After 

remaining fairly constant 

tfiroughout tfie 1980s, 

applications for U.S. cilizensfiip 

skyrocketed in tfie 1990s. 



















1 — * 



1 1 1 1 

actually sit down in an ENS office for their formal interviews. In Miami, this 
lag can last as long as 480 days. Waits of up to 12 months are common in 
Detroit, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. On top of that, the time lapse 
between the naturalization interview and the actual swearing-in is often 
several months.' 

To reduce the backlog, the INS has channeled additional resources to its 
naturalization efforts. It also has tried to streamline the naturalization 
process. Unfortunately, the agency has devoted an undue amount of attention 
to watering-down the testing requirements. The INS now appears to view the 
U.S. history and government test as an obstacle in the way of serving more 
people, as opposed to a necessary standard that all must meet. INS 
Commissioner Doris Meissner has even suggested eliminating the mandatory 
personal interview at which naturalization applicants currently take their 
history and government exam.'" Another proposal currrenlty under INS 
consieration would exempt entire classes of people from having to take the 
history and government exam. These would include anybody with a U.S. 
high-school diploma as well as anyone who has completed a course in 
American history or political science at any U.S. college, university, or "INS 
approved facility."" 

One of the most significant threats to the integrity of naturalization 
exams involves the contract testing that became the subject of combative 
Congressional hearings in September 1996. Six INS-approved testing 
services now offer examinations to naturalization applicants. For a fee, these 

4 I CEO Policy Brief 


groups will test immigrants on their knowledge of U.S. history and 
government. If the test-takers pass, they receive a waiver exempting them 
from the exam requirement when they have their interview with an INS 
official. Although sound in theory, this program has become rife with 
corruption Many of the main contractors work with sub-contractors whose 
ranks include advocacy organizations. Allegations of cheating are widespread 
and have been documented.'' Privatization and decentralization typically 
offer reliable strategies for coping with public problems, but the INS has 
done an extremely poor job of monitoring this program. Although the 
majority of contractors and sub-contractors are honest providers, the 
scandalous dealings of some jeopardize the entire process. 

Perhaps the most significant threat of all, however, comes neither from 
programmatic changes to the naturalization process nor from contract testing. 
Rather, it emerges from within, as INS offices cut comers to reduce the 
backlog of citizenship applicants. To see how this can happen, it is first 
necessary to understand how naturalization testing works. 

How the Tests Work — and Naturalization applicants generally take their U.S. history and 

How They Don't government exams when they appear for their formal interview at an INS 

office. In addition to taking this test during the interview, applicants will 
work with an INS officer to make sure their paperwork is in order; 
demonstrate their ability to speak, read, write and understand English; and 
answer any questions the officer asks them. Most interviews are completed in 
10 to 15 minutes. 

The U.S. history and government tests are all of a type, their content 
drawn from a series of short books published by the INS. " The questions are 
simple enough: "Who was the first president of the United States?" "Why do 
we have a holiday on the 4th of July?" "Who makes the laws in the United 
States?" They may also ask applicants to name current officeholders, such as 
governors or senators. (For a more complete view of the kinds of questions 
that appear on the test, see Appendix 11.) 

The questions may have several possible answers. If a test asks, 
"Who was Abraham Lincoln?", an INS examiner will accept any of these 
possible answers: the 16th president, author of the Emancipation 
Proclamation, author of the Gettysburg Address, the president during the 
Civil War, the president who freed the slaves, etc. Some of the questions on 
the test can be tricky. If asked "Who elects the president?", most Americans 
probably would say "the people." The correct answer, however, is the 
electoral college. If asked "Which countries were our enemies during World 
War II?", the response must include Italy as well as Germany and Japan. 
Identifying each of the 13 original colonies and naming the chief justice of 
the Supreme Court are two more examples of questions beyond the reach of 

5 I Citizenship for Granted 


many native-born Americans. A thoroughly prepared citizenship applicant 
will know, among other things, the origin of the flag and its meaning, the 
reasons why we celebrate certain national holidays, the responsibilities of 
each of the three branches of government, the terms of office for the president 
and members of Congress, and a series of importeint names and dates. 

Immigrant-rights groups regularly complain that the U.S. history and 
government exams are too difficult. At a recent symposium sponsored by 
Georgetown Law School, one activist told the story of an elderly Chinese 
immigrant who allegedly committed suicide because she found the U.S. 
history and government exam too difficult." Even if this tale is true, it is 
hardly typical. Despite this, self-proclaimed immigrant advocates often talk 
about people being asked obscure questions regarding the capital of North 
Dakota, President Millard Fillmore, or the 12th Amendment. Granted, 
immigrants themselves have generated fables surrounding the tests. Yet these 
tales must take their place beside other urban myths, such as the one about 
alligators living in the city sewer system, because that is what they are — 
myths. Advocacy organizations that speak in such terms simply would like to 
do away with the testing entirely because they want as little as possible to 
stand between immigrants and citizenship. These groups refuse to accept even 
the modest standards already in place. They would prefer none at all. Their 
vocal presence serves only to encourage the INS in the sloppy way it 
currently handles naturalization testing. 

In reality, only five to ten percent of citizenship applicants fail. This is, 
of course, a self-selected group. Applicants would not take the test if they 
thought they were not going to pass. But the low percentages also speak 
against the ridiculous claim that the tests are extraordinarily difficulty. 

District Testing Procedures The INS gives each of its 33 districts an enormous amount of leeway in 

how they administer their U.S. history and government tests. They may be 
oral, written, or both. Figure 3, based on CEO's survey, shows the dramatic 
variation that can occur from district to district. Because of arbitrary 
differences in the administration of history and government tests among the 
districts, an immigrant who passes an exam in Boston might also fail an 
exam in San Antonio. This is a violation of current law, which says that 
naturalization requirements "shall be uniform throughout the United States."" 
Here are three examples of how the testing varies; 

I Arlington, Va. Applicants are asked 12 questions, of which they 
must answer seven correctly (58 percent). These questions can be 
asked in either oral or written form. 

I Atlanta, Ga. Applicants face up to 100 oral questions. There is no 
minimum score needed to pass. Passing an applicant is at the 
discretion of the INS officer giving the test. 

6 I CEO Policy Brief 

Figure 2: Map of INS 

Districts. Each of the INS's 

33 district offices determines its 

own naturalization testing 



I Miami, Fia. Applicants must score seven out of 10 (70 percent) on 
an oral examination. This is perhaps the single most popular form 
of the test, also used in Denver; Honolulu; Newark, N.J.; Portland, 
Ore.; and San Antonio. 

Given these differences, it seems clear that not every citizenship 
applicant will have to meet the same standards. Applicants in Atlanta are at 
the total mercy of the INS officers who conduct their interviews. These 
officers may demand an unreasonably high level of knowledge. The more 
likely scenario, however, is that the officers will demand almost nothing at all. 

Indeed, with the current rush to citizenship and the INS confronting 
enormous public pressure to process naturalization applicants quickly, 
citizenship standards appear particularly vulnerable to a massive dumbing- 
down. Agents regularly hint that their superiors are more interested in 
meeting a numbers-driven goal than in making sure every naturalization 
applicant receives an appropriate assessment. "We have about 15 minutes for 
each interview," noted an INS officer based in Arlington, Va. "If I want to 


Juan, PuoTO Rico 

7 I Citizenship for Granted 


Figure 3: Survey of District Offices Naturalization testing procedures very dramatically from district to 
district. In addition, most districts report that their testing is not subject to any oversight. 


Anctioroge, AK 

10 • 





■ :\^ 

Ariington. VA 


Oral & Written 




Atlanta, GA 






Sattimore, t^D 








. Varies 




' '"1 

Buffalo. NY 
CfiIcago.lL , 


Oral & Written 




, ■■■ -■ ■ ,SJ-v 




Cleveland. OH 






Dallas. TX 






Denver. CO 






Detroit. M\ 


Oral & Written 




■ v:.i 

El Paso. TX 






Hattingen. TX 
Helena. IvIT 



Oral & Written 





Honolulu, HI 






Houston, TX 






Kansas City, N/IO 
Los Angeles. CA 

New Orleans, LA 


















- 5-10% 




.!i./!Srpl ''■.-.. 


V .5:1.0%.- ■ 

Newark. NJ 






Omotia, NE 


, .' Oral & Written' 




Phiiladelphio, PA 
Ptioenix AZ, ■ : 


■V Oral&Wrtffen • 

■60% ■ ■ 





Portland, I^E 






Portland. OR 







San Antonio. TX 






San Diego. CA 

San Francisco. CA 











San Juan. PR 

Varies .. 



-; iM5% 


' ^k 

Seattle. WA 






St. PauL MN 

,. Varies 

.OraL& Written, 


■^~ - tc«;-.,. 



8 I CEO Policy Brief 


take a little extra time to check something, it really backs things up. We're 
always behind, even if things go smoothly. I usually skip my lunch hour just 
to catch up. You can guess what you want about the LNS giving us so many 
appointments and so little time."" 

A stunning loophole in the INS procedural manual shows just how 
subjective the history and government examination can become: "In choosing 
the subject matters, in phrasing questions and in evaluating responses, due 
consideration shall be given to the applicant's education, background, age, 
length of residence in the United States, opportunities available and efforts 
made to acquire the requisite knowledge, and any other elements or factors 
relevant to an appraisal of the adequacy of the applicant's knowledge and 
understanding."" In other words, the INS permits completely arbitrary 
testing. Robert Bowles, assistant district director for examinations in Puerto 
Rico, confirms that this loophole comes into regular use in his office: "We try 
to administer the test in line with the applicant's capacity. It all depends on 
the applicant's capacity." 

The INS district office in Boston allows for widespread abuse of this 
loophole: "There is no specific naturalization test. It is at the test 
administrator's discretion to ask as many questions as he feels are necessary, 
or none," said Karen Haydn, assistant district director for examinations in 
Boston. This is because "the workers' union protested a standardized format 
some years ago." 

No Oversight The ins has earned a reputation for being one of the worst-run federal 

agencies. (For a thorough review of its problems, see Daniel W. Sutherland's 
CEO Policy Brief, "Abolish the INS.")" The fact that Washington does not 
monitor the naturalization testing that goes on in its 33 districts is further 
proof of this claim. Indeed, INS headquarters in Washington is unable to 
provide the information revealed in Figure 3. It simply has no idea what 
happens beyond the Washington, D.C. city limits. 

In CEO's survey of all 33 districts, most spokesmen said that nobody 
oversees their testing procedures. Figure 3 shows each district's response — 
yes or no — as to whether Washington oversees its administration of the U.S. 
history and government examination. Only six said they received 
supervision. The other 27 said that nobody monitors their testing. Here are a 
few examples of what INS officials said: 

I "There is no oversight," said Karen Haydn, assistant district 
director for examinations in Boston. 

I "All Washington did was establish the guidelines for the operation 
of our test site. We just comply," said Karen Eckert, deputy 
assistant director for examinations in Buffalo, N.Y. 

9 I Citizenship for Granted 


I "There is no Washington oversight," said Mark Hansen, assistant 
district direction for examinations in Cleveland. 

Indeed, the ENS headquarters in Washington, D.C., acknowledges its 
lack of oversight. "There are no oversight procedures at all," said Ernestine 
Fobbs, an ENS spokeswoman. 

Conclusion: By weakening the U.S. history and government test, the INS damages a 

Adopt National Standards vital part of the naturalization process, the single best measure it has for 

determining whether immigrants understand the democratic principles they 
must know in order to participate fully in American civil society. The surest 
guard against the erosion of standards— and the only way to guarantee fair 
treatment from district to district — is to establish set of national standards 
based upon the following four principles: 

I The test should be neither too hard nor too easy. It should 
include 20 fill-in-the-blank questions and require 1 5 correct 
responses to pass. A 10- to 15-minute time limit would be 
appropriate. INS interviewers might also be permitted to coax oral 
responses from borderline cases, but only with guarantees that this 
practice would not become a slippery slope to lower standards. 
Individual districts might be allowed to experiment with testing 
people in groups immediately before they sit down for their 
interviews, especially if such a procedure would save time. 

I The questions should be made more meaningful. Currently, 
many of the questions test trivia rather than an understanding of 
American political principles. An immigrant might be asked a U.S. 
senator's term of office. A more compelling question would ask 
why elected representatives have terms of office in the first place. It 
strikes at a more fundamental point about American democracy, and 
questions like it would probably serve as a better index of 

I Combine the U.S. history and government exam with the 
English-language requirement Because this is a written, fill-in- 
the-blank test, applicants who pass should be assumed to have met 
the English-language reading and wnting requirements. They would 
not have to read sentences to their INS interviewers nor would they 
have to write down sentences dictated to them — two popular 
practices right now. This reform would save these extra steps and 
cut down on the amount of time needed for mterviews. 

1 I CEO Policy Brief 


I INS headquarters should monitor the testing procedures in all 
district offices to ensure their uniform nature. Furthermore, if 
the INS wants to continue its practice of allowing private vendors to 
offer the U.S. history and government test, it must immediately 
begin an aggressive quality-control program to guarantee the 
integrity of all involved. Absent this reform, the INS should 
abandon contract testing entirely. 

By meeting these goals, the INS would ensure that its testing on U.S. 
history and government is fair and meaningful. It would also put the INS in 
compliance with a law that, at least for the moment, it carelessly flouts. The 
U.S. attorney general has broad powers to make rules and regulations 
governing the content and administration of the U.S. history and government 
examination.^" There is no reason why the INS cannot begin immediately to 
write and adopt a set of national standards that would make its testing more 
fair and more meaningful. 

I Citizenship for Granted 


Appendix I: TTie authors would like to thank the dozens of INS officials who shared 

Methodology their knowledge and insights for this Policy Brief. This paper would not have 

been possible without their generous assistance. 

Sources interviewed in July 1996 for the survey of districts include: 

Penelope Acosta, Supervisor District Adjudication Officer, Denver 

Marjorie Allen, Assistant District Director of Examinations, San Antonio 

Robert Bach, Executive Associate Commissioner for Immigration, Washington, D.C. 

Robert Bowles, Assistant District Director for Examinations, San Juan, Puerto Rico 

Tom Brownrigge, Supervisor of DisUict Adjudication, Detroit 

Walter Cadman, District Director, Miami 

William Carroll, Distfict Director, Arlington, Va 

Karen Eckert, Deputy Assistant Director for Examinations, Buffalo, N.Y. 

Robert Eddy, District Director, Anchorage, Alaska 

Dwight Faulkner, Examinations Officer, Atlanta, Ga. 

Benedict Ferrol, District Director, Baltimore 

Eugene Fitzpauick, District Director, Portland. Maine 

Ernestine Fobbs, Press Associate, Washington, DC. 

Greg Gagne, Press Associate, Washington, DC. 

Jerry Garcia, Assistant District Director. Portland. Ore. 

Greta Gozinski. Supervisor of DisUict Adjudication, Philadelphia 

Mark Hansen. Assistant District Director of Examinations, Cleveland 

Sylvia Hatfield, Supervisor District Adjudication Officer, New Orleans 

Karen Haydn, Assistant Disu-ict Director of Examinations, Boston 

Craig Howie, Press Associate, Washington, DC. 

John Klow, Supervisory DisUict Adjudication Officer, Bloomington, Minn. 

Rob Koon, Press Associate, Washington, DC. 

David Lambert, Head of Examinations, Seattle 

Warren Lewis, District Director, Newark, N.J. 

Lisa McClellan, Special Assistant Public Information Officer and Congressional 

Liaison Officer, San Diego 

Edward McElroy, DisUict Director, New York, NY. 

Kenneth Pasquarell, District Director, El Paso, Texas 

Michelle Perry. District Adjudication Officer, Kansas City, Mo. 

Roger Piper, Acting District Director, Chicago 

Donald Radcliffe, District Director, Honolulu 

Richard Rodgers, District Director, Los Angeles 

Deborah Rodriguez. Acting Deputy District Director, Phoenix 

Kathy Schuler, Supervisor for District Adjudication. Dallas 

David Still, Assistant District Director of Adjudication, San Francisco 

Eric Trominski, District Director, Harlingen, Texas 

Jerry Uhte, Assistant District Director of Examinations, Helena, Mont. 

Robert Wallis, District Director, Houston 

Ken Zarybnick, Disuicl Adjudication Officer, Omaha, Neb. 

I 2 I CEO Policy Brief 


Appendix II: 

Sample Questions & Answers 

to the Citizenship Test 


Department of Justice 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 


Sample Citizenship Questions 


following questions are examples of what may be asked of 

you on 

your examination for citizenship. You may pnctice 

for the cxtm by attempting to answer them. 


What are the colors of our flag? 


Who makes the laws in the United States? 


How many stars are there on our flag? 


What is Congress? 


What color are the stars on our flag? 


What are the duties of Congress? 


What do the stars on the flag mean? 


Who elects Congress? 


How many stripes are on the flag? 


How many senators are there in Congress? 


What color are the stripes? 


Can you name the two senators from your 


What do the stripes on the flag mean? 


For how long do we elect each senator? 


How many states are there in the union? 


How many representatives are there in 


What is the 4th of July? 


For how long do we elect the representatives? 


What is the date of Independence Day? 


What is the executive branch of our 


Independence from whom? 


What is the judiciary branch of our 


What country did we fight during the 
Revolutionary War? 


What are the duties of the Supreme Court? 


Who was the first President of the United 


What IS the supreme law of the United States? 


Who is the President of the United States 


What is the Bill of Rights? 


Who is the Vice President of the United Stales 


What is the capital of your state? 


Who elects the President of the United States? 


Who is the current governor of your state? 


Who becomes President of the United States 


Who becomes President of the U.S.A. if the 

if the President should die? 

President and Vice President should die? 


For how long do we the elect the President? 


Who is the Chief Justice of the Supreme 


What is the Constitution? 


Can you name the thirteen original states? 


Can the Constitution be changed? 


V</ho said; "Give me liberty or give me death'? 


What do we call a change to the Constitution? 


Which countries were our enemies during 
World War II? 


How many changes or amendments are there 


W/hat are the 49th and 50th States of the 

to the Constitution? 



How many branches are there in our 


How many terms can a President serve? 


What are the three branches of our 


Who was Martin Luther King, Jr ? 


What is the legislative branch of our 


V^o is the head of your local government? 




3230 „) 


3 I Citizenship for Granted 


Appendix II: 


According to the Constitution, a person must 


Name 3 rights or freedoms guaranteed by the 

meet certain requirements in order to be 

Bill of Rights. 

eligible to become President. Name one of 

these requirements. 


Who has the power to declare war? 


Why are there 100 senators in the Senate? 


What kind of government does the United 


Who selects the Supreme Court Justices? 

States have? 


How many Supreme Court Justices are there? 


Which President freed the slaves? 


Why did the pilgrims come to America? 


In what year was the Constitution written? 


What is the head executive o( a state 


What are the first 10 Amendments to the 

government called? 

Constitution called? 


Name one purpose of the United Nations. 


What is the head executive of a city 

government called? 


Where does Congress meet? 


What holiday was celebrated for the first time 


Whose rights are guaranteed by the 

by the American colonists? 

Constitution and the Bill of Rights? 


Who was the mam wnter of the Declaration of 


What is the introduction to the Constitution 




When was the Declaration of Independence 


Name one benefit of being a citizen of the 


United States. 


What is the basic belief of the Declaration of 


What is the most imponanl right granted to 


U.S. citizens? 


What is the National Anthem of the United 


What is the United States Capitol? 


What is the White House? 


Who wrote The Star Spangled Banner! 


Where is the While House located? 


Where does Freedom of Speech come from' 


What is the name of the President's official 


What is the minimum voting age in the United 



Who signs bills into law? 


Name one right guaranteed by the First 


What is the highest court in the United States' 



Who is the Commander-in-Chief of the US 


Who was President during the Civil War? 



What did the Emancipation Proclamation do? 


Which President was the first Commander-in- 
Chief of the U.S. military? 


What special group advises the President? 


In what month do we vote for the President? 


Which President is called "the Father of Our 



In what month is the new President 


What Immigration and Naturalization Service 


form is used to apply for naturalized 


How many times may a senator be re-elected' 



Who helped the pilgrims in America? 


How many times may a congressman be re- 


What is the name of the ship that brought the 


What are the 2 major political parties in the 

pilgrims to America? 

U.S. today? 


What were the 1 3 original slates of the United 


. How many states are there in the United 

States called? (21 


1 4 I CEO Policy Brief 


Appendix II: 


■re die correct answers. Match your reqxMues a^uiut those gives to check your accuracy. 


Red. white ant) blue 






(Determine by tocality) 




6 years 


One for each state in the Union 






2 years 


Red and white 


The President. Cabinet and departments under 
the cabinet members 


They represent the original 1 3 states 


The Supreme Court 




To interpret laws 


Independence Day 


The Constitution 


July 4th 


The first 1 Amendments of the Constitution 




(Determine by tocality) 




(Determine by locality) 


George Washington 


Speaker of the House of Representatives 


Bill Clinton 


William Rehnquist 


Al Gore 


Connecticut, New Hampshire. New York. New 
Jersey. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, 


The Electoral College 

Delaware, Virginia, Nonh Carolina, South 
Carolina, Georgia, Rhode Island, and Maryland 


Vice President 


Patrick Henry 


Four years 


Germany, Italy and Japan 


The supreme law of the land 


Hawaii and Alaska 






An amendment 


A civil rights leader 




(Determine by locality) 




Must be a naturat-t>orn citizen of the United 
States; must be at least 35 years old by the 


Legislative, executive and judiciary 

time he/she will serve; must have lived in the 
United Stales for at least 1 4 years 




Two from each state 




Appointed by the President 


The Senate and the House of Representatives 




To make laws 


For religious freedom 


The people 


1 5 I Citizenship for Grante(d 


Appendix II: 



(gjThe right to uial by Jury, in most cases 
(hIProtection of people against excessive or 



unreasonable fines or cruel and unusual 



(ilThe people have rights other than those 
mentioned in the Constitution 


Thomas Jefferson 

(j)Any power not given to the federal 
government by the Constitution is a power of 


July 4. 1776 

either the states or the people 


The Congress 


That all men are created equal 




rA» SUr Spsnghd Bmiwr 


Abraham Uncoln 


Francis Scon Key 




The Bill of Rights 


The Bill of Rights 




For countries to discuss and try to resolve 


The President 

worid problems; to provide economic aid to 
many countries 


The Supreme Court 


In the Capitol in Washington. DC. 


Abraham Lincoln 


Everyone (citizens and non-citizens living in the 


Freed many slaves 


The Preamble 


The Cabinet 


Obtain federal government jobs; travel with a 
U.S. passport; petition for close relatives to 


George Washington 

come to the US to live 


The right to vote 


Form N-400 (Application lor Naturalization! 


The place where Congress meets 


The American Indians (native Americans) 


The Pre9ldent,s ofliclal home 


The Mayflowaf 


1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Northwest, 



Washington, D.C. 


The White House 


(alFreedom of speech, press, religion. 

peaceable assembly and requesting change of 


Freedom of: Speech, Press, Religion. 


Peaceable Assembly, and Requesting Change 

(blThc right to bear arms (the right to have 

of tf»€ Government 

weapons or own a gun, though subject to 


The President 

certain regulationsl 

(c)The government nuy not quarter, or house, 


George Washington 

soldiers in citizen's homes during peacetime 

without their consent 



(d)The government may not search or take a 

person's property without a warrant 



(e)A person may not be tried twice for the 

same crime and does not have to testify 


There is no limit 

agairtst ftim/herself 

(flA person charged with a crime still has some 


There is no limit 

nghts, such as the right to a fair trial and to 

have a lawyer 


Democratic and Republican 

ER-815 ERFC 

100. 50 

09/94 3230 (41 

1 6 I CEO Policy Brief 


k i (~\t p c 1 william branigin. "ins accused of tolerating citizenship testing fraud," 

' ^ ^^ ' *- ^ Washington Post. September 1 1 . 1996. 

2. SEE Matthew Spalding, "From Pluribus to Unum." Poucy Review. Winter 1994. 

PGS. 35-41. 


BOOKS, 1945. PG 250. 


5. THE Oath of Citizenship. "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and 


6. US Bureau of the Census, Current population Reports, "The Forhgn-Born 

population, 1994." 

7. u.s. immigranon and naturalization service. 1993 statistical yearbook. pc. 

1 34; Patrick j. McDonnell, "Learning the Language of Citizenship," Los 
ANGELES Times, august 5. 1996, pg. B3. 

8. For a brief summary of these details, see the U.S. Commission on 

Immigration reform. Legal immigration: SeiriNG priorities. 1995, pgs. 181- 

9. American Immigration lawyers association. Report Card on INS 

adjudications. July/ august 1996. 

10. Patrick J. McDonnell, "INS may Waive Some Interviews for Citizenship," 

Los ANGELES Times. September i, 1995, pg. Bl 

1 1 . Arnold Rochvarg, "Reforming the administrative Naturalization Process: 

Reducing Delays while Increasing Fairness," Georgetown immigration 
Law Journal, vol. 9, No. 3, Summer 1995, pg. 428 


SEEKERS," Washington times. September 10. 1996; frank Trejo. "Firm Says 
IT Hasn't Heard from INS.." Dallas Morning News, June 29. 1996; and the 
ABC News program 20/20. "Selling Out America." July 12. 1996. 


Naturalization Information" (M-287). "United states History: 1600-1987" 
(M-289). and "U.S. Government Structure" (M-291). 

1 7 1 Citizenship for Granted 





16. Vermont does not fall under the RnusDicnoN of any of the 33 district 

OFRCES. It conducts its own naturalization testing under the AUSPICES 


1996. PG. 51. 



19. Daniel W. Sutherland, "abolish the INS: How federal Bureaucracy Dooms 



I 8 I CEO Policy Brief 



3 9999 05984 099 9 



The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) is a project of the Equal 

Opportuinty Foundation, a non-profit reseorch institution established under 

Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. CEO sponsors 

conferences, supports research, end publishes policy briefs ond 

monographs on issues related to race, ethnicity, immigration, and public 


Linda Chavez, President 

Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the 
views of the Center for Equol Opporunity or as an attempt to aid or 
hinder the passage of any bill before Congress. 

1 9 1 Citizenship for Granted 


ISBN 0-16-055317-2